Sometimes I do wonder, why even bother with film. Then, all I need to do is develop a roll, see the negatives, and then, I realize why. In my job as a programmer, I spend at least 8 hours per day with a computer. I remember when digital cameras first became available, I was fascinated with the instant gratification of the digital image.
Soon, it became painfully apparent that the images that came out of the camera were, shall we say, less than satisfactory. The next thing, naturally, was some image manipulation tool such as Photoshop, followed by the “light room”. This is all well and good, but it got old kind of quick. I go to work all day, work on a computer. I come home, take some photos with a highly computerized camera, download the photos to the hard drive (more computer terms), open up an application and work on these images.
Sure, it was great a times to learn about layers and masks and all of these cool things, but after a while, it just came down to learning another application. More computer work, if you will.
With film, I can experience the different characteristics of each film. I can experiment with different developer/film combinations. I can experiment with development time, agitation, temperature, and all manner of variables.
I feel, in this way, I am part of the process. However, I am still a hybrid, preferring to have a bit of convenience. Develop, scan, then manipulate. I do not miss having a full wet-darkroom complete with development trays and an enlarger. I’m just fine with inkjet and lightroom.
Finally, I guess that it is just the simplicity of the film camera. Point. Focus. Shoot. No menus. No nothing. You have to understand the metering of the camera and understand the limitations of the film that you are shooting. No helpful histograms or chimping to tell you if you got it right. You’re an integral part of the process.
Anyway, just food for thought.
Related Posts :
I love to visit Chris Klug's blog. He always provides a wealth of information about different ...
Agfa Pan 25 Lightroom preset I'm making it a daily habit to visit Chris Klug's blog. I like i ...
Since I received my Mamiya 645e film camera, I've been shooting with it almost exclusively. ...
One thing I think was more prevalent in my film days was the finality of the image on film. No Raw adjustments, and if anything, you spent time tweaking the scan just to get it to look like the original transparency. Basically you chose the “look” you were after up front with the choice of film. Now with it at the end of the process, it can lead to endless indecision.
…and endless possibilities.
I worked in film manufacturing for 20 years and enjoyed the full wet darkroom experience. However, when I got my DSLR 3 years ago and a copy of Photoshop, I jumped into digital with both feet. Last year was the first year that I did not shoot film, so I had nothing to process and print in the darkroom. I only miss it on rare occasions, mostly during the winter with the long nights. Even when I was in full film mode, I only used the darkroom during the winter months. Chemical have become scarce even in camera stores and some of the big NY stores can’t ship some chemicals. Silver rich B&W papers are very expensive. Kodak and Agfa have exited the scene. Kodak here in Rochester is only a shadow of itself, at one time employing more than 50,000 folks in the area, now down to less than 8,000. There is a generation growing up with out film and I doubt that there is any interest for them to reinvigorate a film resurgence. Unless a digital file is printed in an archival manor, it’s ones and zeros will be lost forever someday since there is really no physical form to it as there is with negs and slides.
Hey, Ken. In terms of numbers, I’m not quite sure how many people are still shooting film; however, it seems that it is in pretty good shape. I spent quite a bit of time in the darkroom myself, though not 20 years. I probably did not shoot film for about 6 or 7 years, but then the urge just came back with a vengeance. It may well go away again, but while it is here, I will enjoy it.
As for being a shadow of itself, well, they have to follow the market, I suppose. I can still get developer, etc, from Freestyle Photographic in California, which reminds me, I need to order some Rodinal.
As you mentioned, the NYC boys and girls will not ship chemistry. I’m enjoying my renaissance period with film and when I tire of it, I’ll move on to whatever is next.
Yes, slides and negatives are tangible items, but they also present their storage requirements. Fortunately, I’m pretty laid back about it. If I lose some, I’ll just take more. It’s not my living, but my enjoyment.
Well, since you know I’ve thought a lot about this (and, in fact, am working on a web site that is going to be mainly about film photography) I’ll just say that it all comes down to two things: the fun I have working with equipment that I cut my teeth on, and, second, the fact that I don’t have to ‘muck’ around with images to get them to look like what I desire. They are already there. I’ve heard many wedding photographers who still use film do so because their post-processing workflow is so much easier.
But to each his own, and your mileage may vary. The most important thing to me is to have fun.
Chris, you bring up a good point. I don’t think that digital has made anything easier, but, as you mentioned, more complex. Also, I’m looking forward to seeing your film-only website/blog.
As Earl says, you DO have more options. I agree with that. But, honestly, sometimes all I want is Velvia or HP5 or PanF or whatever.