Shooting medium format film is undeniably a different process to digital - it's not better or worse. Yes the results require more time and cost for dev and scanning but the result is the same. It's an image. Shooting film slows you down too and makes you more connected to the subject than digital. Digital is convenient and has better ISO capabilities and enables the subject to be part of the process more looking at the screen. Personally I shoot film for my own projects and digital for commercial. I think that is a good balance and engages two different process. I love both! To answer your question - film is far from dead.
I agree with you. I don't miss film at all for all the reasons you say. I do think making it easy has made everyone a photographer (not necessarily a good one). That has made competition for jobs higher. My theory, is that in the new wave of AI, when creating an image is as easy as typing in a prompt, then the process will become important again. The backstory becomes more important than the end result. So what you are doing here by explaining the backstory to an image, or people going through an onerous process, will be the value.
Thanks for the great comment! Definitely agree around it being easier to get photos showing good technique. But like Harry mentioned technique isn't what makes a great photographer, that's just the bare minimum now, I guess?
I shoot film for the joy of the process, I shoot digital for the convenience of the result. Sometimes it is more about the journey than the destination. To me it is analogous to cooking from scratch vs. heating up a frozen dinner.
Love the frozen dinner analogy! I shoot analog for the joy of doing something tangible with my hands. Not to mention the fascination with 150 year old technology that still works wonders.
Your comment ‘shooting film is an affectation’ really sums it up. It’s what you shoot that matters not what you shoot it with. Oh and I started as an assistant in 1980 and have shot everything from 35mm to 10x8 and processed a lot of it too. Whilst I loved the magic of the darkroom I just regard photoshop as that same space.
If I had the cash, I’d only shoot film for recreational and street photography. Unfortunately, film in Australia is really expensive and the supply fluctuates like crazy. It still has a place and it should at least be experienced by every photographer who can get their hands on it.
WoW! Just wow. I hate to agree but... I do and I don't. Maybe the answer to your rhetorical question is not a digital one. Is film dead? The world of art, visual art, painting with light, photo-graphy, is big enough to encompass many different forms of expression. Film, charged metal plates, CMOS sensors, etc. Just as there are limitless possibilities of artistic expression in photography with current technology, remembering that film was once the state of the art, so too current digital technology will one day be surpassed by what we do not know know. Even though your semi-clickbateish question is one that is important to ponder, perhaps it's a question that is even less salient now than ever. Is stone sculpture dead? Is hand made paper dead? Are pencils dead? Are cellos dead? To my way of thinking, film or not film, is symbolic of this richness of our era. We live in a time when we HAVE the option! So getting out and creating, in whatever media makes your creative socks roll up and down, is what it is all about. Debating what format, brand, lens, aspect ratio, emulsion, pixel density, blah blah... is the food that feeds the bottomless pit that is the UA-cam monster but pointless in the real world. Maybe the question "is X or Y dead?" should be what is... Dead. Thanks for another evocative great video!
Thank you for the comment!! Good read and some interesting questions for sure. 😁 Also please excuse the clickbaity title we are just trying to play the youtube game 😂
I remember transitioning to digital and it was enormously liberating, if only because you have so much more control over the how the final image turns out.
For personal work i always shoot film. I spend my days at work (fashion company in Glasgow) shooting digital....editing...all with high tech gear. I own a digital setup of my own but i haven't touched it in many months. I love loading up my Fuji GW690 with a roll of black n white film.....taking a wander...shooting some portraits on the street, maybe leave the film in the camera and finish off the roll a few days later then process at home and gaze at the images using a loupe while the film dries off. For me its all about slowing down and enjoying the process. I was at the stage a few years ago where i totally went off photography...since getting back into film a couple of years ago i find myself looking forward to shooting.
Hi Fred and Harry. The dynamic with the people you are photographing, the client, and various others, is better because they can interact with the digital image via the camera or tethering on some shoots. That, is the big change that is better for most and worse for a few who are fearful of change or progress. Enjoy the weekend, fellas.
I think that colour film still looks nicer than digital photos. Nothing comes close to old Kodachrome, unfortunately. Furthemore, digital imaging is not making actual progress because the makers of image sensors prioritise the wrong things, such as high pixel counts, high ISO and global shutter. These things degrade the image, rather than improving it. Therefore, the older CCD sensors made nicer images than the current tech does. I only use new digital cameras when speed is needed. Otherwise, I prefer film or older digital cameras.
I agree about film looking nicer. Sometimes I'll run a digital picture through a film filter app 😂 but yes it is hard to replicate the real film look. Thanks for the great comment! 😁
Perfectly sums up the topic and love the reference to "... wooden tennis racket!" Narrow-minded luddites relish back-seat driving new technology. Apt, given they're closer to the rear view mirror! For example, composited images have been around for 100 years yet some discard the results as not photographs. That digital cameras have freed the photographer from excessive time, cost and limited frames, post processing software has grown to become an equally powerful tool in the photographer's arsenal. Anyway, I like the way you think!
I'm just a lowly amateur and, for me, I enjoy the tactile process of using an old medium format camera and having a tangible negative that I can scan or print. In an age where AI will soon be snapping at the heels of digital photography, it's nice to have something that gives my work "proof" and authenticity. For some reason - maybe just the fact that it forces me to slow down and think before pressing the shutter - my best images have been shot on film and I've improved significantly since switching back to it. Still what you say is true. It's a ton of hassle and I don't think the final film image has a magic quality that can't be reproduced with a good digital edit. If I was being paid to get "the shot" then I'd never be working solely on film. I wouldn't be able to take the stress! Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking video.
Goodness me. I'm in total agreement. I last shot film in 1997 except for a short period in 2003/4 when I did so again while on the *very last* mature student film course they ran at Peterborough College (they switched to pure digital in 2005). My first and last chance to develop film and print it in a darkroom! I have to admit, it was magical. However, the instant feedback of digital just can't be beaten (although, my first digital camera in 1997 had no display to see the images - so a nice transition from film!) The images are postage-stamp size, but I wouldn't delete them as they are a record and of their time. I must have been one of the first people in the UK to digitally photograph architecture. I've now got 600,000 images in my archive and I reckon I have deleted in-camera about a 1/3 more. Developing and storing 800,000 images would have been well beyond my means. So it's hats off to digital. I am glad though that I lived in an era between film and digital.
Just lifted your final quote and posted it into a photography thread on IG Threads (where film officianados prevail). I happen to agree with you, BTW 😎 Really enjoying your videos and look forward to each new one as it comes out. Thank you so much!
Ah thank you! I'd love to see the thread? I hope it went down well, the quote can sometimes come across controversial 😅 Thanks for the kind comment also, means a lot and is the reason we do these videos.
Hello I've been on your channel already, and got back to see this video. I totally agree with what you say, and I need to add something, although I'm just a hobbyist in photography. Yes, digital is much easier, quicker, cheaper, and better. But I compair it with a view of a mountaintop. Digital is like getting up there in a cablecar, enjoying the view without a sweat drop in your eyes, seeing everything crystal clear. Analogue is climbing up the mountain with lots of work, but the view is the same. But, I'm more proud of myself, doing all this myself. Maybe not as perfect, and perhaps with some pain, but it's so much different. Don't get me wrong, I don't say you can't be proud of a digital image. Looking forward to see more of your videos.
Great comment, thanks for checking out the channel. I agree with both you and Harry. Both mediums can produce beautiful photos worth being proud of. But I can't help feel there is something special about certain images shot on film!
Reasons I prefer film over digital that you did not address. The main and obvious one, is that they look different. Sure you can get pretty close with digital film simulations, but there is still a difference. The rest of my points are just to do with the process itself, but I believe the process does also have an effect on the final image, in more indirect ways: There is an element of skill involved in film photography that is not present in digital. The craftmanship is more immediate and relevant. Almost like fishing (instead of just buying a fish from the market), it is part of the fun. Having a limited amount of shots makes me much more considered about what I am going to shoot, and my pictures are normally better because of that. If I am shooting a person, and pass the information on to them that it will be shot on film so each shot is more precious, I feel they also take it more seriously in many cases, feeding into a better (or at least different) final image. Going through the whole process of planning, shooting, developing, and then even printing in the darkroom, creates a finished product that is more valuable that a digital print. It is more unique, and personal, and makes a much better gift, or wall piece, or art piece. I could probably think of more things, but I'll finish with one last one that I have been thinking about lately, and that is with regards to A.I. More and more I am seeing A.I images being created and many times passed off as an actual photographs. For me personally, I much prefer an actual recorded moment on a physical medium, without anything removed or added digitally. I suspect as more and more people become privy to A.I images, and they become more prevalent, more people will start to share my sentiment, and maybe film photography, being more true to genuine moments in time, will make a comeback of sorts. At least that is my hope.
One thing worth pointing out- you can get started for a lot cheaper and still get great photos out of a film camera, compared to buying a newer digital camera.
good vid thanks. I've never been a "which is better" photographer. I always felt that shooting with film slows me down and makes me think, partly as I have fewer frames to work with. I do think that medium format/large format looks different to digital and perhaps a med format digital would suit my way of working better than a 35mm DSLR (If I could afford it :) ) There is a look- formality? that comes with larger formats though- have a look at Mary Ellen Mark's 20x24 polaroid portraits for example (and Richard Avedon). But, cost and scanning and dust removal are a pain. People shoot with different cameras, formats, film/digital in different contexts and for different reasons. Thanks for the vid and look forward to the next
As a hobbyist, who came to photography via painting (and should pick up a brush more often), I find film photography far more rewarding than digital. I draw, paint, and photograph as a hobby, I deal with computers for work (and have done for 25 years, with like another 20 ahead of me). I don't want computers in my hobbies. Photography and dark room printing are a meditation for me. For "photographers", there is no argument, if the final image is the final arbiter, then the medium makes no difference, and the easiest rd to getting it makes sense. But if you take photographs for fun, the process of getting there can be varied and rewarding, and film can be a fabulous option.
Oh at last someone saying it like it is. I liken film shooting to the emperor's new clothes. I still have film cameras but no plans to use them again. But nice to have :)
Of course a scanned negative or slide film picture is just a digital picture. And on any digital picture you can change any pixel. But: To edit a picture taken with a digital camera so is it 100% like taken on film is not only extremely time consuming, it is next to impossible. And therefore it is not only neither cheaper nor time efficient to mimick a film look with digital -- you simply don't get the same results. Even Fujifilm, who should know their film stock best, cannot really manage to give us the look of their silde films in their digital camaeras. But on the other hand people seem to have gotten used to the clinical, sterile look of digital pictures. Therefore film photography will always be something special, like a real piano over a digital one.
Shooting on film doesn't make your work special, or better, or interesting. But the mindset of being more intentional and deliberate might. The film resurgence is mostly an affectation, photographic naval gazing. What is also true is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, in fact, I wish more young people did it because superficially they thought it made them cool. Who am I to judge how someone finds their way in to their art, some of the hipsters will actually discover that there's something real in the point and shoot house party pictures they take, they might even begin to think and feel deeper about what photography is, or what it is for them. Personally, I like that I have a physical, tangible thing that comes out of a dev tank. I like negatives. I like slides. I like that i don't get emails about running out of cloud space, so I need to increase my subscription etc etc. Every photographer I've ever admired has a film archive, either completely or partially. This isn't about the recording format, that's true, it's about the work ultimately. I like looking through ground glass instead of a high refresh rate mirrorless viewfinder. It feels like there's something in the way when I do that. And I do do that. I do like eye tracking autofocus. I like editing, even retouching digital files. But I'm lucky enough to own a Swedish box, and when I use it, I remember how I felt the first time I saw a photograph that really moved me and wanting to emulate it. That's subjective of course, nostalgic obviously and doesn't make that much sense. But that's the point. It's messy, poorly thought out reasoning, but it's mine and so are these negatives.
In a way I long to shoot 8X10 again. For those who have not mastered parallax, bellow's factor, reciprocity failure, f 6.3 lenses, routine 20 second exposures and longer- the art of capturing and placing the reflection of light to enhance the subject. Sad. A lens board, six feet of billows and a film plane- the rest was up to the photographer. An era when aesthetic required craft. The transition to 21/4 then 35mm was a breeze. Now my game is to make the iPhone with one lens behave. It doesn't.
it'll be interesting to see how long the current film resurgence can sustain itself, but with demand being high enough for new Pentax and Rollei consumer cameras, and IMAX making their first new film camera in ~30 years for cinema I think there's probably quite a few years left in it yet.
The technique is not empty viz. the work of Sally Mann and John Dugdale. It's an artistic choice just like choosing egg tempera or oils over watercolours. However for a commercial job that would not apply in most instances. Shooting film because it's cool and you have an M6 to demonstrate your coolness does not necessarily result in quality work. There are endless videos on YT showing Leica shooters doing street photography of the backs of people's heads.
3:12 You say this like digital cameras don't have any chemistry in their manufacture. If you look up what's involved in silicon wafer production some of the things used are truly horrific and there are large numbers of so-called 'superfund' sites in California that are the legacy of chip fabrication there. I'm not saying that wet film processing was without its problems but modern cameras don't exist in a vacuum either. As has been discussed in another comment, the invention of acrylic paint hasn't made oils obsolete, nor did photography itself render painting obsolete. Sure you can, with the skill and knowledge built up over a lifetime recreate these things but will say, a 20 year old starting now have all your knowledge having lived through the analogue era and see what it's meant to change to what are now essentially computers with a lens on the front? My view is that creative work often needs that difficulty of production, at least when learning, to find what is possible. When you're offered a computer that can essentially do anything at all it's very hard to know where to stop. Limitations as they say, breed creativity.
Thanks for the comment - interesting stuff! I can definitely see the value of new photographers atleast experiencing film and understanding the tools which got us to where we are today.
If I had the cash, I’d only shoot film for recreational and street photography. Unfortunately, film in Australia is really expensive and the supply fluctuates like crazy. It still has a place and it should at least be experienced by every photographer who can get their hands on it.
Shooting medium format film is undeniably a different process to digital - it's not better or worse. Yes the results require more time and cost for dev and scanning but the result is the same. It's an image. Shooting film slows you down too and makes you more connected to the subject than digital. Digital is convenient and has better ISO capabilities and enables the subject to be part of the process more looking at the screen. Personally I shoot film for my own projects and digital for commercial. I think that is a good balance and engages two different process. I love both! To answer your question - film is far from dead.
I agree with you. I don't miss film at all for all the reasons you say.
I do think making it easy has made everyone a photographer (not necessarily a good one). That has made competition for jobs higher.
My theory, is that in the new wave of AI, when creating an image is as easy as typing in a prompt, then the process will become important again. The backstory becomes more important than the end result.
So what you are doing here by explaining the backstory to an image, or people going through an onerous process, will be the value.
Thanks for the great comment! Definitely agree around it being easier to get photos showing good technique. But like Harry mentioned technique isn't what makes a great photographer, that's just the bare minimum now, I guess?
I shoot film for the joy of the process, I shoot digital for the convenience of the result. Sometimes it is more about the journey than the destination. To me it is analogous to cooking from scratch vs. heating up a frozen dinner.
Love the frozen dinner analogy! I shoot analog for the joy of doing something tangible with my hands. Not to mention the fascination with 150 year old technology that still works wonders.
Your comment ‘shooting film is an affectation’ really sums it up. It’s what you shoot that matters not what you shoot it with. Oh and I started as an assistant in 1980 and have shot everything from 35mm to 10x8 and processed a lot of it too. Whilst I loved the magic of the darkroom I just regard photoshop as that same space.
If I had the cash, I’d only shoot film for recreational and street photography. Unfortunately, film in Australia is really expensive and the supply fluctuates like crazy.
It still has a place and it should at least be experienced by every photographer who can get their hands on it.
WoW!
Just wow.
I hate to agree but... I do and I don't.
Maybe the answer to your rhetorical question is not a digital one.
Is film dead?
The world of art, visual art, painting with light, photo-graphy, is big enough to encompass many different forms of expression. Film, charged metal plates, CMOS sensors, etc.
Just as there are limitless possibilities of artistic expression in photography with current technology, remembering that film was once the state of the art, so too current digital technology will one day be surpassed by what we do not know know.
Even though your semi-clickbateish question is one that is important to ponder, perhaps it's a question that is even less salient now than ever.
Is stone sculpture dead?
Is hand made paper dead?
Are pencils dead?
Are cellos dead?
To my way of thinking, film or not film, is symbolic of this richness of our era. We live in a time when we HAVE the option!
So getting out and creating, in whatever media makes your creative socks roll up and down, is what it is all about.
Debating what format, brand, lens, aspect ratio, emulsion, pixel density, blah blah... is the food that feeds the bottomless pit that is the UA-cam monster but pointless in the real world.
Maybe the question "is X or Y dead?" should be what is... Dead.
Thanks for another evocative great video!
Thank you for the comment!! Good read and some interesting questions for sure. 😁
Also please excuse the clickbaity title we are just trying to play the youtube game 😂
I remember transitioning to digital and it was enormously liberating, if only because you have so much more control over the how the final image turns out.
For personal work i always shoot film. I spend my days at work (fashion company in Glasgow) shooting digital....editing...all with high tech gear. I own a digital setup of my own but i haven't touched it in many months. I love loading up my Fuji GW690 with a roll of black n white film.....taking a wander...shooting some portraits on the street, maybe leave the film in the camera and finish off the roll a few days later then process at home and gaze at the images using a loupe while the film dries off. For me its all about slowing down and enjoying the process. I was at the stage a few years ago where i totally went off photography...since getting back into film a couple of years ago i find myself looking forward to shooting.
Great comment! Thank you!
Hi Fred and Harry.
The dynamic with the people you are photographing, the client, and various others, is better because they can interact with the digital image via the camera or tethering on some shoots. That, is the big change that is better for most and worse for a few who are fearful of change or progress.
Enjoy the weekend, fellas.
I think that colour film still looks nicer than digital photos. Nothing comes close to old Kodachrome, unfortunately. Furthemore, digital imaging is not making actual progress because the makers of image sensors prioritise the wrong things, such as high pixel counts, high ISO and global shutter. These things degrade the image, rather than improving it. Therefore, the older CCD sensors made nicer images than the current tech does. I only use new digital cameras when speed is needed. Otherwise, I prefer film or older digital cameras.
I agree about film looking nicer. Sometimes I'll run a digital picture through a film filter app 😂 but yes it is hard to replicate the real film look.
Thanks for the great comment! 😁
Perfectly sums up the topic and love the reference to "... wooden tennis racket!" Narrow-minded luddites relish back-seat driving new technology. Apt, given they're closer to the rear view mirror! For example, composited images have been around for 100 years yet some discard the results as not photographs. That digital cameras have freed the photographer from excessive time, cost and limited frames, post processing software has grown to become an equally powerful tool in the photographer's arsenal. Anyway, I like the way you think!
Great comment and thanks for the kind words too! And totally agree with your added points 😊
I'm just a lowly amateur and, for me, I enjoy the tactile process of using an old medium format camera and having a tangible negative that I can scan or print. In an age where AI will soon be snapping at the heels of digital photography, it's nice to have something that gives my work "proof" and authenticity.
For some reason - maybe just the fact that it forces me to slow down and think before pressing the shutter - my best images have been shot on film and I've improved significantly since switching back to it.
Still what you say is true. It's a ton of hassle and I don't think the final film image has a magic quality that can't be reproduced with a good digital edit. If I was being paid to get "the shot" then I'd never be working solely on film. I wouldn't be able to take the stress!
Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking video.
Goodness me. I'm in total agreement. I last shot film in 1997 except for a short period in 2003/4 when I did so again while on the *very last* mature student film course they ran at Peterborough College (they switched to pure digital in 2005). My first and last chance to develop film and print it in a darkroom! I have to admit, it was magical. However, the instant feedback of digital just can't be beaten (although, my first digital camera in 1997 had no display to see the images - so a nice transition from film!) The images are postage-stamp size, but I wouldn't delete them as they are a record and of their time. I must have been one of the first people in the UK to digitally photograph architecture. I've now got 600,000 images in my archive and I reckon I have deleted in-camera about a 1/3 more. Developing and storing 800,000 images would have been well beyond my means. So it's hats off to digital. I am glad though that I lived in an era between film and digital.
Just lifted your final quote and posted it into a photography thread on IG Threads (where film officianados prevail). I happen to agree with you, BTW 😎
Really enjoying your videos and look forward to each new one as it comes out. Thank you so much!
Ah thank you! I'd love to see the thread? I hope it went down well, the quote can sometimes come across controversial 😅
Thanks for the kind comment also, means a lot and is the reason we do these videos.
Hello
I've been on your channel already, and got back to see this video.
I totally agree with what you say, and I need to add something, although I'm just a hobbyist in photography.
Yes, digital is much easier, quicker, cheaper, and better. But I compair it with a view of a mountaintop. Digital is like getting up there in a cablecar, enjoying the view without a sweat drop in your eyes, seeing everything crystal clear. Analogue is climbing up the mountain with lots of work, but the view is the same. But, I'm more proud of myself, doing all this myself. Maybe not as perfect, and perhaps with some pain, but it's so much different.
Don't get me wrong, I don't say you can't be proud of a digital image.
Looking forward to see more of your videos.
Great comment, thanks for checking out the channel. I agree with both you and Harry. Both mediums can produce beautiful photos worth being proud of. But I can't help feel there is something special about certain images shot on film!
Reasons I prefer film over digital that you did not address. The main and obvious one, is that they look different. Sure you can get pretty close with digital film simulations, but there is still a difference.
The rest of my points are just to do with the process itself, but I believe the process does also have an effect on the final image, in more indirect ways:
There is an element of skill involved in film photography that is not present in digital. The craftmanship is more immediate and relevant. Almost like fishing (instead of just buying a fish from the market), it is part of the fun.
Having a limited amount of shots makes me much more considered about what I am going to shoot, and my pictures are normally better because of that. If I am shooting a person, and pass the information on to them that it will be shot on film so each shot is more precious, I feel they also take it more seriously in many cases, feeding into a better (or at least different) final image.
Going through the whole process of planning, shooting, developing, and then even printing in the darkroom, creates a finished product that is more valuable that a digital print. It is more unique, and personal, and makes a much better gift, or wall piece, or art piece.
I could probably think of more things, but I'll finish with one last one that I have been thinking about lately, and that is with regards to A.I. More and more I am seeing A.I images being created and many times passed off as an actual photographs. For me personally, I much prefer an actual recorded moment on a physical medium, without anything removed or added digitally. I suspect as more and more people become privy to A.I images, and they become more prevalent, more people will start to share my sentiment, and maybe film photography, being more true to genuine moments in time, will make a comeback of sorts. At least that is my hope.
One thing worth pointing out- you can get started for a lot cheaper and still get great photos out of a film camera, compared to buying a newer digital camera.
That's true as well!
good vid thanks. I've never been a "which is better" photographer. I always felt that shooting with film slows me down and makes me think, partly as I have fewer frames to work with. I do think that medium format/large format looks different to digital and perhaps a med format digital would suit my way of working better than a 35mm DSLR (If I could afford it :) ) There is a look- formality? that comes with larger formats though- have a look at Mary Ellen Mark's 20x24 polaroid portraits for example (and Richard Avedon). But, cost and scanning and dust removal are a pain. People shoot with different cameras, formats, film/digital in different contexts and for different reasons. Thanks for the vid and look forward to the next
As a hobbyist, who came to photography via painting (and should pick up a brush more often), I find film photography far more rewarding than digital. I draw, paint, and photograph as a hobby, I deal with computers for work (and have done for 25 years, with like another 20 ahead of me). I don't want computers in my hobbies. Photography and dark room printing are a meditation for me.
For "photographers", there is no argument, if the final image is the final arbiter, then the medium makes no difference, and the easiest rd to getting it makes sense.
But if you take photographs for fun, the process of getting there can be varied and rewarding, and film can be a fabulous option.
Very interesting!
😂
Oh at last someone saying it like it is. I liken film shooting to the emperor's new clothes. I still have film cameras but no plans to use them again. But nice to have :)
Definitely nice to have, thanks again for the comment!
Of course a scanned negative or slide film picture is just a digital picture. And on any digital picture you can change any pixel. But: To edit a picture taken with a digital camera so is it 100% like taken on film is not only extremely time consuming, it is next to impossible. And therefore it is not only neither cheaper nor time efficient to mimick a film look with digital -- you simply don't get the same results. Even Fujifilm, who should know their film stock best, cannot really manage to give us the look of their silde films in their digital camaeras. But on the other hand people seem to have gotten used to the clinical, sterile look of digital pictures. Therefore film photography will always be something special, like a real piano over a digital one.
Brilliant comment at the end. Loved it. It’s the subject that matters…..
Completely. With today's cameras great technique can be easily achieved. It's always been the subject/creativity that matters.
Absolutely love your portraits, especially the celebrity ones. Will you ever create a retrospective on this work from over the years?
Harry will likely make another book from his WhenHarryMet series
Shooting on film doesn't make your work special, or better, or interesting. But the mindset of being more intentional and deliberate might. The film resurgence is mostly an affectation, photographic naval gazing. What is also true is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, in fact, I wish more young people did it because superficially they thought it made them cool. Who am I to judge how someone finds their way in to their art, some of the hipsters will actually discover that there's something real in the point and shoot house party pictures they take, they might even begin to think and feel deeper about what photography is, or what it is for them. Personally, I like that I have a physical, tangible thing that comes out of a dev tank. I like negatives. I like slides. I like that i don't get emails about running out of cloud space, so I need to increase my subscription etc etc. Every photographer I've ever admired has a film archive, either completely or partially. This isn't about the recording format, that's true, it's about the work ultimately. I like looking through ground glass instead of a high refresh rate mirrorless viewfinder. It feels like there's something in the way when I do that. And I do do that. I do like eye tracking autofocus. I like editing, even retouching digital files. But I'm lucky enough to own a Swedish box, and when I use it, I remember how I felt the first time I saw a photograph that really moved me and wanting to emulate it. That's subjective of course, nostalgic obviously and doesn't make that much sense. But that's the point. It's messy, poorly thought out reasoning, but it's mine and so are these negatives.
In a way I long to shoot 8X10 again. For those who have not mastered parallax, bellow's factor, reciprocity failure, f 6.3 lenses, routine 20 second exposures and longer- the art of capturing and placing the reflection of light to enhance the subject. Sad. A lens board, six feet of billows and a film plane- the rest was up to the photographer. An era when aesthetic required craft. The transition to 21/4 then 35mm was a breeze. Now my game is to make the iPhone with one lens behave. It doesn't.
it'll be interesting to see how long the current film resurgence can sustain itself, but with demand being high enough for new Pentax and Rollei consumer cameras, and IMAX making their first new film camera in ~30 years for cinema I think there's probably quite a few years left in it yet.
The technique is not empty viz. the work of Sally Mann and John Dugdale. It's an artistic choice just like choosing egg tempera or oils over watercolours. However for a commercial job that would not apply in most instances. Shooting film because it's cool and you have an M6 to demonstrate your coolness does not necessarily result in quality work. There are endless videos on YT showing Leica shooters doing street photography of the backs of people's heads.
3:12 You say this like digital cameras don't have any chemistry in their manufacture. If you look up what's involved in silicon wafer production some of the things used are truly horrific and there are large numbers of so-called 'superfund' sites in California that are the legacy of chip fabrication there. I'm not saying that wet film processing was without its problems but modern cameras don't exist in a vacuum either.
As has been discussed in another comment, the invention of acrylic paint hasn't made oils obsolete, nor did photography itself render painting obsolete. Sure you can, with the skill and knowledge built up over a lifetime recreate these things but will say, a 20 year old starting now have all your knowledge having lived through the analogue era and see what it's meant to change to what are now essentially computers with a lens on the front?
My view is that creative work often needs that difficulty of production, at least when learning, to find what is possible. When you're offered a computer that can essentially do anything at all it's very hard to know where to stop. Limitations as they say, breed creativity.
Thanks for the comment - interesting stuff! I can definitely see the value of new photographers atleast experiencing film and understanding the tools which got us to where we are today.
Right to the point
People might want to check out Cameron Hammonds work. He only shoots on film.
Haha truth hurts
If I had the cash, I’d only shoot film for recreational and street photography. Unfortunately, film in Australia is really expensive and the supply fluctuates like crazy.
It still has a place and it should at least be experienced by every photographer who can get their hands on it.