Why I Shoot Film
Most of what I know about photography I owe to Camp Susque. The same faded instructional posters and 30-minute lesson that hoards of Susque boys and girls have received was to my 12-year old self in the basement of Hemlock Hall what F = m(a) would later be to my teenage counterpart in high school Physics.
I had to look over my shoulder to be sure no grown-ups were in the room when the counselor took the lens completely off the body of the old Pentax and showed us how the shutter works. I had a hard time remembering how to say the word aperture, but it's function made perfect sense--it was just like an eye's iris! It was a blank-white-page-and-sharp-No. 2-pencil-kind of feeling when he said that we could take pictures in the dark if we just held the shutter open for a full minute. Finally, I almost uttered "Why didn't I think of that," when he taught us about the 1/3 rule for composition. There was treasure everywhere, and I only needed my eyesight and a roll of film to claim it as my own.
The statistician in me wonders how many rolls of film I have sent away for development in my life. The purist in me knows all the reasons why I still send film away for development and why I still don't own a digital camera. Below find a few:
- Film came first. Well, at least it's an older photographic process. I will never advocate a return to pinhole cameras, but I do generally impose a healthy sense of skepticism and hold my tongue whenever I hear someone try to convert me to anything new-er, quick-er, or more convenient. "Newer" is hardly ever "better" in my mind (this is probably related to at least one of the reasons that I never fully relax in a church with a "worship team").
- Film can be inconvenient. Shots can be destroyed and utterly lost if the back of the camera pops open. Prints can be ruined if someone walks into your darkroom. Granted, these things have never happened to me, but the danger is still ever-present and haunts my dreams.
- Shooting film is more difficult. There is far more pressure to capture a shot the first time when shooting with film. One can't delete and re-shoot a poor picture with film; the image permanently occupies a frame on a roll of 24 forever. No one with a digital camera is limited by the price of a roll of film. I consider it partially a matter of personal discipline to consciously engage in activities that are deliberately more difficult.
- Shooting film feels more artistic. Shooting color film feels kinda organic. Shooting black and white film makes one feel artsy. Shooting black and white film in Central Park makes one feel irresistible to really cute girls from dairy farms in Susquehanna County.
- Digital cameras have given otherwise poor photographers the illusion that they are good photographers. Even more pitiable, it has caused many people to believe that they enjoy taking pictures. Taking good pictures is not easy, nor should it be made easier for a mass of people whose only qualification is that they can afford to pay to remove another human element from their automated lives. New parents can take 72 pictures of their firstborn trying to walk, and come away with two interesting pictures of the event. This will not deter them from posting all 72 pictures on Facebook, however.
- Film produces better prints. Given two prints of an identical scene, I can always pick out which photograph was taken with a digital camera and which was film. I always prefer the film print.
- Empty film canisters make convenient cases for foam ear plugs.
- Waiting for film prints builds patience. I still love dropping a roll of film in the send-away bin at Walmart. I love writing "Wednesday after 10 a.m." on the slip and waiting until four days pass. I love stopping at Walmart on Wednesday after 10 a.m. to pick up my pictures. For the purposes of this essay, I will pretend that I don't mind how many times the clerk needs to check the same six drawers of picture envelopes before she finds my envelope (right where it should have been). I love paying for my pictures without knowing how they turned out. I love walking through the parking lot dying to know how they turned out. I love sitting in my truck for 15 minutes looking at every print at least three times and finally knowing how they turned out. I curse my mistakes and rejoice in my victories. I delight in Delayed Gratification.
- I liked Chemistry better than C++. I can't explain exactly how film exposed to light will produce an exact replica of an image (and with dead-on colors!), but I'm even farther from being able to understand how a computer can imitate the process.
I choose film because it's harder, it's less convenient, and it makes me wait. I reject digital because it's more automated, foolproof, and (I feel) sterile. The above does not necessarily sanctify me, but I do believe that it contributes to the process. Give film another try--it may make you a better person.
4 comments:
Or at the very least, it may make you think you're a better person.
;-)
I don't necessarily disagree with any of your reasons, but digital does have its benefits as well, as does film its drawbacks. Good digital photography is extremely hard. Granted, you don't have a limited supply of shots to get the right shot, but with action photography especially there is a limited amount of time, just like film. If you miss the hummingbird, it doesn't matter if you have a film or digital camera. You still missed it.
The digital "processing" is extremely hard as well, and I have a lot of respect for photographers who are good at it. I'm not talking about cheap editing with cute borders and simply changing a shot to black and white. I'm talking real down and dirty photo processing. You don't develop your own film shots (though I know you know how), so a digital fan could argue that digital is "harder" because of the processing aspect. A good photographer will spend several hours processing digital shots in his digital darkroom while all you do is drop it off at Wal*Mart and pick it up later.
While I agree that film has its merits - especially the romanticized factor - I prefer digital because of having more control over the final product, since I don't think the acne-laden teens at Wal*Mart know exactly how I want shots to turn out.
Photography is a great passion of mine and I love to hear other people talk about their enjoyment from photography. One of the best things about it is that there are no right or wrong answers about format, composition or inspiration. Even with the continuing advances in digital, it’s likely that film will always be a viable alternative. Anyone who tells you that digital or film is completely superior over the other doesn’t understand the complexities and depths of either format. With that in mind, I hope can add to the discussion with the appearance of being argumentative.
- Film Came First. I found it interesting that you used worship bands as an example of “newer” and “better.” This made me think about how our personalities are shaped by our experiences growing up in the church. As a Baptist, I have grown up in churches that respect tradition, but also look for God to “do a new thing” in and through the church. This may not apply directly to photography, but this mindset makes me more willing to question the status quo and to be open to new ways of doing things.
- Film can be inconvenient. – If losing a roll of film is a bad dream, losing digital images is a nightmare. The only files I have ever lost on a computer were photos from several days of a mission trip. One of those days was a “day off” and we had the once-in-a-lifetime chance to see up close the gilded dome of a magnificent cathedral undergoing restoration. It was breath taking and all of our pictures of it are gone. My heart sinks when I think about it.
- Shooting film is more difficult. I agree that there is a benefit to the physical limitations of film and forcing yourself to consciously setup the photograph before you take it. That is an important process that distinguishes good photographers from amateurs. The benefit from digital is that once I have the shot set up in my mind, I can see how it turned out instantly, make changes to my set up and take the shot again. Often times this iterative process will lead to new inspiration for different shots and I can follow that inspiration immediately.
- Shooting film feels more artistic. Just for the record I want to note that you used the words “organic,” “artistic” and “artsy” to describe yourself.
- Digital cameras have given otherwise poor photographers the illusion that they are good photographers. You are preaching to the choir on this one. My only concern is that as I get into wedding photography, how many “pro” photographers will see my work and apply this criticism to me?
- Film produces better prints. Film does have more detail than most digital cameras but you really can’t see the difference unless you print large poster sized prints. I think the bigger advantage here is that you get prints of all of the photos you take. I don’t print as many pictures as I would like and that makes me jealous sometimes.
- Waiting for film prints builds patience. This is a little off topic, but one thing I really miss from film is making prints in the darkroom. Putting a print into developer, watching the image appear and realizing you have a good picture is a great rush and that doesn’t translate into Photoshop.
Two more of my thoughts to add on:
- Film is permanent. You mentioned the permanence of film, but I think you missed the most important aspect of this characteristic. If stored properly, film can last hundreds of years. April and I have film from photographs our grandparents took 50 and 60 years ago. It is going to be very difficult if not impossible for my grandchildren to print pictures I take today on my dSLR.
- The learning curve on digital is low. Not as many people do it, but it is very easy to learn the same basics of photography that you learned at camp on a digital SLR. If fact it is so easy that you could possibly teach everything you learned in a week on film in a day or two on digital. Just think of the treasure you could have found if you would have been able to study more advanced topics of photography at summer camp.
I switched over to digital four years ago, but sadly didn't have the money to switch to a digital SLR (so I got the closest thing - a canon powershot, that at least still has some form of shutter and aperture control).
One thing I realized about digital is that it makes me a lazy photographer, and thus, a poor one. When I used to spend a fair amount of time lining up a shot, using a light-meter, and really working on a picture, now I just take several and try different settings until it looks okay on the screen on the back of my camera. I think this is partially a result of digital being so much cheaper. Each shot really doesn't cost me a thing.
So, despite teaching photography at susque for several years, and spending hours and hours in dark rooms or out in the fields taking pictures (or better yet, waiting for long-exposures of meteors at night), I think my current photographs are indistinguishable from 99% of photographers out there.
Post a Comment