film snobs?

Nick_b · 08-05-2008, 02:51 PM

So I've been reading a lot of anti digital rhetoric around here and I'm wondering why?!? I think it's pretty universally acceptable that the photographer makes the photo not the camera, so why all the snobbery towards digital. It's simply another way to take a photo...... Also I'd just like to say digital cameras take photographs. That is not something exclusive to film cameras.

stevebrot · 08-05-2008, 03:38 PM

There is a certain aspect of nostalgia regarding film. There are also some differences in how the medium in general and how certain types of film react to light as compared to a digital sensor.

Snobbery...maybe

A different slant...definitely

Excuse to take offense...hopefully not

As for myself, I have several film bodies that I am having CLA'ed with the intent of working with film again on a limited basis. I really like the way my film cameras handle and I appreciate the relative simplicity, small size, and light weight of my 35mm SLR. I also miss the 35mm format, particularly for landscape photography where my 28mm Tamron delivers the required FOV with almost no distortion.

Am I quiting digital? NO WAY!! My skill level and the quality of my work increased immensely with the move to digital. That and it is a lot of fun to simply take pictures and not worry about the expense of processing or the effort of hours of darkroom work.

Steve

artobest · 08-05-2008, 04:07 PM

I'd take your point completely if we were trolling on a digital forum, but to be fair, this is a film discussion forum. I don't get the sense that anybody's hurling around insults here. To me it's a bunch of enthusiasts for an archaic artform, talking amongst themselves before they drift off into extinction.

I would also disagree with the idea that film and digital are exactly equivalent. As the previous poster pointed out, there are many technical differences between the two mediums, which manifest themselves in various ways.

*Nesster* · 08-05-2008, 04:42 PM

Ansel Adams: "I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable characteristics, and the artist and functional pratcitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them."

Vincent Versace: "For me the black-and-white image has always been the core, the essence, and the soul of photography. ... The magic in watching a black-and-white image appear in the developer tray, along with the smell of stop bath and fixer, is what sparked my desire to be a photographer. My formal education in photography was in large format black-and-white nature photography. Before 1998, the year I went totally digital, I was shooting some 6000 rolls of film per year, of which 90% were black-and-white. At the time, I made my living doing head shots for Hollywood actors, and those were always shot and printed in black-and-white.
...
As I entered the digital world, black-and-white prints took a backseat to the new art of digitally capturing color images and to the concerns of how to best produce a print that remained true to my vision. One of the basic tenets of my training as a photographer was derived from an Ansel Adams quote. "The negative is everything, the print all. The negative is the sheet music and the print is the symphony." ...

Until recently, this was the sorry state of affairs that existed for the great black-and-white negatives produced by such photographic icons as Ansel Adams, Minor White ... Their prints -the ones with which we all fell in love - were made on papers that are no longer available. Today's photographic papers no longer contain heavy metals...Ironically the same heavy metals made the older papers archivally stable and gave them great maximum densities. ...

Film works with density and digital cameras work with luminance, so they have different RGB responses and tone-reproduction curves. Images captured on film will look different from those captured with a digital camera.
...
Another factor to consider is that film, digital cameras, and people all see the colors in a scene differently. There are many reasons for this, but two of the more significant ones are the spectral sensitivities and tone-reproduction curves that are unique to each medium. Every film type has unique RGB characteristics because of its photographic emulsion chemistry. Each digital camera type has unique RGB responses and tone-reproduction characteristics because of its RGB sensors and filters, as well as its signal (image) processing characteristics.
Neither film nor digital cameras reprodusce color the way the human eye sees it. The eye has unique color and tone responses. Film and digital cameras attempt to approximate the way people see color; but, as is always the case, there are design trade-offs that compromise the goal.

So what is RGB, really? If you walk away from this lesson having learned only one thing -- aside from how to make a great black-and-white print from a color capture -- it shoud be this: RGB isn't a color, it's a formula to mix color."

Quoted from Vincent Versace, Welcome to OZ, a Cinematic Approcah to Digital Still Photography with Photoshop.

An exhausting book to read, but one I highly recommend. I tend to agree with much Versace says. And, for us with equipment and lens fixations... um, enthusiasms... the message of how much more there is to learn and do to master the medium is daunting. And this went for the film and darkroom days at least as much as it goes for digital. Getting a 'good capture' is only the start.

Jodokast96 · 08-05-2008, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by artobest

I'd take your point completely if we were trolling on a digital forum, but to be fair, this is a film discussion forum. I don't get the sense that anybody's hurling around insults here. To me it's a bunch of enthusiasts for an archaic artform, talking amongst themselves before they drift off into extinction.

I think I know what the OP is refering to. There have been a couple of comments made elsewhere on the site. Nothing that I thought was meant to be insulting, just some points where film is seen as better combined with one's preference for using it.

woof · 08-05-2008, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Nick_b

So I've been reading a lot of anti digital rhetoric around here and I'm wondering why?!? I think it's pretty universally acceptable that the photographer makes the photo not the camera, so why all the snobbery towards digital. It's simply another way to take a photo...... Also I'd just like to say digital cameras take photographs. That is not something exclusive to film cameras.

I am a film user and active in the film SLR forum. Honestly, I don't think anyone intended snobbery. Please understand that at times no small bit of digital snobbery gets directed at us "backward folk." You should see the look I get when I whip out my 51 year old Pentax. Snickers a best. Pity at worst.

Not from this community that I have seen, but certainly elsewhere. Sure people debate the topic of "film is dead" etc., but I seriously doubt any of the people here look down on the film shooters. Same in reverse.

I do love film. But frankly, I love digital as much. For different and complimentary reasons. Each have their place, and each can interpret the same scene differently... and both in interesting ways.

My philosophy is that my digital photography is all the better for knowing and having shot film for... oh... 35 or so years. But you know what? All of a sudden, as I learn the ins and outs of my K10D, my film photos are improving. Feature that... a feedback loop. Having seen this, why would I limit myself?

Don't be put off. And when you encounter someone who says "film is dead" remember that that memo has not really been sent yet.

Respectfully,

woof!

SpecialK · 08-05-2008, 07:16 PM

[quote]I'd take your point completely if we were trolling on a digital forum, but to be fair, this is a film discussion forum. [quote]

Did someone move the thread? I'm finding it in "Off-topic" - > "general talk" :-)

Some people enjoy developing of film and paper in the darkroom, or like the "look" of film. To them, digital media removes some warm fuzzies, perhaps. I did some printing in the old days, but I don't miss it.

Some people prefer prime lenses over zooms. I can't see much difference from the gallery images, though. At larger than 11 x 14 there might be some noticeable difference, but how often do we do that? Someone wants 9 primes in their bag to try to match the perfect lens with the subject? - great, but I don't.

Some people think using manual mode teaches you something (apparently forgetting there is no difference in exposure if the camera sets 1/500 at f8 or you do.) Whatever the lesson is, I guess I missed that day, but many people have said "great shot" or "great color" at my (mostly) "P"-produced images.

I could never go back to film now, both because of economics (film and processing), and the instant gratification of digital.

But if someone wants to shoot film with a much-loved nifty-fifty in manual, who am I to argue?

You should do what you like to do. If you like the results, that's all that matters - unless your client doesn't.

ryan s · 08-06-2008, 12:22 AM

I'm the exact opposite

The following is my opinion...yes, the O word.

Originally Posted by SpecialK

Some people enjoy developing of film and paper in the darkroom, or like the "look" of film. To them, digital media removes some warm fuzzies, perhaps. I did some printing in the old days, but I don't miss it.

Digital loses not only some of the dynamic range from an image, but it tends to look flat. Just like digital music...sounds good, but lacks the warmth and subtleties of analog.

In the car, I like the "live" sound. At home, I like the "studio" sound. So digital lives on the road and analog lives in the house...

Originally Posted by SpecialK

Some people prefer prime lenses over zooms. I can't see much difference from the gallery images, though. At larger than 11 x 14 there might be some noticeable difference, but how often do we do that? Someone wants 9 primes in their bag to try to match the perfect lens with the subject? - great, but I don't.

Primes are just more fun to use. I don't have to futz with an aperture, focus, AND zoom ring all at once. Plus, it takes away the lazy factor. I'm a glutton for punishment

Oh, and I can keep my SR on. I dislike slow lenses.

Originally Posted by SpecialK

Some people think using manual mode teaches you something (apparently forgetting there is no difference in exposure if the camera sets 1/500 at f8 or you do.) Whatever the lesson is, I guess I missed that day, but many people have said "great shot" or "great color" at my (mostly) "P"-produced images.

Every driven a manual car? Tell me it's not different, even though both have 4 wheels and go down the road.

Originally Posted by SpecialK

I could never go back to film now, both because of economics (film and processing), and the instant gratification of digital.

But if someone wants to shoot film with a much-loved nifty-fifty in manual, who am I to argue?

I might have come off as a little harsh, but in the end, to each his own

ftpaddict · 08-06-2008, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by ryan s

Every driven a manual car? Tell me it's not different, even though both have 4 wheels and go down the road.

It's probably a bit more work. It's definitely more fun!

Kind-of like with film.

*séamuis* · 08-06-2008, 01:32 AM

I'd take your point completely if we were trolling on a digital forum, but to be fair, this is a film discussion forum. I don't get the sense that anybody's hurling around insults here. To me it's a bunch of enthusiasts for an archaic artform, talking amongst themselves before they drift off into extinction.

first of all I don't think that "archaic" is even close to the right description for film. second none of us film shooters are any more of 'enthusiasts' than any of y'all digital shooters are so I don't think its fair to separate us in that way. we are all interested in photography here....

talking amongst themselves before they drift off into extinction.

I'm sorry but this is just rude at best (unless you were being sarcastic) as a 24 year old film shooter I think its ridiculous that one would assume that because someone chooses film over digital they must be old and 'nostalgic' about it. I am in no way 'old' or 'nostalgic' over film or the vinyl records I listen to, its simply the medium and the tools that go with it that I enjoy using.

*Nesster* · 08-06-2008, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by Nick_b

So I've been reading a lot of anti digital rhetoric around here and I'm wondering why?!? I think it's pretty universally acceptable that the photographer makes the photo not the camera, so why all the snobbery towards digital. It's simply another way to take a photo...... Also I'd just like to say digital cameras take photographs. That is not something exclusive to film cameras.

Perhaps a part of what you perceive is a further extension of the Snobbery against the Popular (i.e. Canon, Nikon) that Pentaxians tend to hold. Because these days the most popular way of shooting Pentax is digital, there are those who further satisfy their contrarian streaks by enthusing about film.

Despite a sentence here or there about film making photographs rather than images (or however it's said, ask Brendan Frazier!) these aren't put-downs of people who prefer digital, or even digital photography, necessarily. I see it all as a voracious, life affirming inclusiveness and gusto. Plus as always, making the less popular choice exposes one socially: we all form little slogans to help ourselves out of that dilemma, whether we admit so or not.

After all, if one takes your statement as literal, then what the hell are we doing using an also-ran digital technology, cameras with obvious design limitations caused by r&d budget constraints, and a lens/accessory system that is far less extensive than the competition's, and marketed as niche product in the shadow of the far better engineered and usable competition? Yes, we should be using Canon and Nikon, and keeping an eye on how Sony revitalizes Minolta.

Oh but us Pentax users aren't snobby, we don't complain how badly or unfairly the reviewers review the equipment, we don't joke about the clueless CaNik users, or rhapsodize how much better the exposure, picture quality, and focus actually are!

**wlank** · 08-06-2008, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by SpecialK

Did someone move the thread? I'm finding it in "Off-topic" - > "general talk" :-)

Yes!!!

Bill

Nick_b · 08-06-2008, 04:59 AM

Thanks for all the responses!

I guess part of the reason I started this thread was I wasn't really sure how people around here really felt about the subject. I know much is said on a forum without a thought to the outsider reading it and words can easily be taken out of context. On the surface it might seem like snobbery but I don't think it is.

I understand the the virtues of film. In fact anything I post here will be taken with film as I don't own a Pentax DSLR. I'm one of those clueless Canon users! haha.

I think there are plenty of younger people who see and feel the differences in film. I've done a bit of concert shooting for a few local bands and one day I brought my P30 to a show and when the artist saw the results she said "You should do all your shoots like that!!!". I had taken plenty of high quality digital shots with some of the best lenses in Canon's line up but she proffered the grainy B&W images of film. So I don't think film is only for the old timers. I think there is a whole new generation discovering the virtues of film.

but I'm still not giving up my DSLR.

Gooshin · 08-06-2008, 07:32 AM

someone said something about a manual car

unless you are lucky enough to have your car equiped with audi's DSG box that hasnt broken yet, manual will always outperform automatic when it comes to delivering your brains desires into motion.

not to mention having the ability to stay in gear if you need to (like if there are two consecutive hairpins and you need to coast for 1 second between them, an automatic box would downshift for you during that time)

anyway this only really matters for the racers out there

but.. just wanted to point out that using the auto/manual anology compared to photography is wrong.

Nick_b · 08-06-2008, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Nesster

Oh but us Pentax users aren't snobby, we don't complain how badly or unfairly the reviewers review the equipment, we don't joke about the clueless CaNik users, or rhapsodize how much better the exposure, picture quality, and focus actually are!

I was going to let that go, but I gotta ask....

Do you have any evidence of this Pentax superiority?

I'm pretty confident my canon kit could hold up to anything you can throw at it.

lol.... (Don't take me too seriously, I'm just playing with ya.

).....