[6BQ5]

Those who never grew up with film cameras will likely not understand the connection, which is much like the connection to classic cars. For me, being able to hold a quality metal film camera is a delight. Often before I go to bed, I pick one of my collection to admire while I operate its controls.Note, one directly operates the control rather than another input which then does the job for you. This gives a tactile satisfaction and a bonding between man and machine. Like the difference between a manual car shift and auto shift, or the difference between a fine mechanical watch and a plastic quartz timepiece. The pleasure comes from the means, not the end result. This is all about emotion connected to operation, rather than to the end result.

I agree. There are many young photographers who did not grow up being immersed in film who are starting blogs, writing articles, and creating exhibitions who have never shot film in their life. Some may have tried once to see what it's like but they really don't understand the medium, the equipment, and how to leverage both to create the image. Their photography related output, whether it is articles or images, is many times one dimensional and quickly becomes repetitive. In order for viewers/consumers to get fresh material they need to quickly move on to a new photographer. You can't wait around for the new photographer to reinvent themselves - because many times they won't.

I liken skipping out on film to digital artists who never drew with crayons, pens, and pencils but went straight to a digital tablet.

[Eyewanders]

FWIW, I shoot digital exclusively, and more than half of my shots have been not only with MF lenses, but also with me manually setting the exposure parameters. And yes, I take pride in the fact that my images are as influenced by my decisions as I can make them.

It was only a couple or 3 years ago that I fell into this description as well. Returning to film was very gradual and I still shoot digital for some applications, particularly event work, but analog asks questions of me, or rather it in many cases *requires* things of me that digital does not ... e.g. there are fewer shortcuts and conveniences.

[gofour3]

While he politely accepts and respects our opinion, he openly states, in conclusion, he just doesn't understand why we would use an inferior tool and accept (he claims) an inferior product. I believe there's more to life than clinically ranking image sharpness according to some scale and proclaiming the newest iteration of some device better than its competing brand.

Those who never grew up with film cameras will likely not understand the connection, which is much like the connection to classic cars.

Yep it's partly an age thing. We can appreciate "older" photography equipment because we grew up with it.

As for the "younger" crowd, some really like using older equipment and shoot film. However some are the opposite and want everything new and have no use for anything older than a year or so. Those are the people I feel sorry for, having to want the latest and greatest of any technology that comes out.

Phil.

[From1980]

This thread is right up my alley so for my two cents worth; I think DSLR users get a higher keeper rate when they slow right down and carefully think through a composition and their technique. So many produce quantity and little quality. Perhaps the news or sports photographer is among modern users who can benefit from modern speed and in camera processing but they will get even better results by going carefully prepared as a film user had to. A digital user still has to know more about photography than the camera to consistently get the best results. Then there is that intangible connection with the older mechanical camera that we enjoyed with our old film cameras. Difficult to define for someone who never experienced it as previously stated but I always thought it an invaluable asset for anyone learning how to make better images.

[Eyewanders]

Film cameras didn't stop 'improving' with the advent of the Spotmatic.

Apart from choosing the emulsion why can't you do this on digital?

That's rhetorical, yes? There's no reason you can't, of course, depending on the camera and how difficult it is to use a full manual mode. I'm genuinely not trying to rehash the digital-vs-analog sort of thing here... just was typing my thoughts. Over on the DSLR forums there's a thread about which exposure modes use most and it seems the predominant mode is Pentax's TAv mode, which arguably is a very cool mode but to me speaks to what I'm saying. Modern cameras are option-machines and so convoluted with feature that I feel they water down the actual photography. I'll just say I'm slightly interested in what the KONOST project is up to - simple and to the point, but digital in every regard.

---------- Post added 09-08-15 at 09:48 AM ----------

Yep it's partly an age thing. We can appreciate "older" photography equipment because we grew up with it.

As for the "younger" crowd, some really like using older equipment and shoot film. However some are the opposite and want everything new and have no use for anything older than a year or so. Those are the people I feel sorry for, having to want the latest and greatest of any technology that comes out.

Phil.

Absolutely, though I've met quite a number of quite young film shooters (and I myself am only 40 - I entered in the sunset years of film, realistically) who are hugely interested in exploring the history for many of the reasons that resonate with me. It's funny how many are labeled "hipsters" by quite a few "serious" photographers... I personally think it's fantastic, hipster or not.

[mohb]

Modern cameras are option-machines and so convoluted with feature that I feel they water down the actual photography.

It's not as if film cameras weren't automated or does that not count?

[Eyewanders]

This thread is right up my alley so for my two cents worth; I think DSLR users get a higher keeper rate when they slow right down and carefully think through a composition and their technique. So many produce quantity and little quality. Perhaps the news or sports photographer is among modern users who can benefit from modern speed and in camera processing but they will get even better results by going carefully prepared as a film user had to. A digital user still has to know more about photography than the camera to consistently get the best results. Then there is that intangible connection with the older mechanical camera that we enjoyed with our old film cameras. Difficult to define for someone who never experienced it as previously stated but I always thought it an invaluable asset for anyone learning how to make better images.

Quite true. It is with good reason that the vast majority of every photography class begins with a basic camera with manual control of the exposure triangle. The K1000 is alive and well. I personally love the the price it commands in the used market. Certainly there are much better cameras, far more advanced offerings even from Pentax at the time which sell now for less than the K1000.... but it has become a sort of emblem, not just cult classic but a symbol of sorts which represents photography at its most basic level.

---------- Post added 09-08-15 at 10:36 AM ----------

It's not as if film cameras weren't automated or does that not count?

I think you're confusing my process ramblings as an indictment. Late model, program mode film SLRs clearly started down this path of dilution. They are great cameras. The features *are useful*... my point is that there is scant talk of photography in the Pentax forums (and elsewhere) other than applied use of modern features... and really that's in the minority as well, eclipsed simply by talk of the features themselves. (If I indeed have a point - I may not - just thoughts and a conversation starter.)

---------- Post added 09-08-15 at 10:47 AM ----------

(It's also entirely possible that I just need to shut up and spend more time in the General Photography threads.) :-P

---

Last edited by Eyewanders; 09-08-2015 at 10:37 AM.

[THoog]

represents photography at its most basic level

I have to disagree there - the K1000 is downright fancy compared to the '49 Agfa rangefinder that my dad made me master before I was allowed to use his SLR. A built in light meter? A viewfinder that shows the actual composition? The ability to uses lenses of different focal lengths? A hotshoe? Luxury!

That ignores the pinhole camera kit I've got somewhere that I meant to waste my time-expired film on. Now THAT's basic.

[Exroadie]

The more complicated my cameras got, the less fun they were to use.
I went back to the stuff I know and understand and I'm happier for it.
Ultimately, being really good as a photographer means mastering your process, learning it inside and out so that you can control and manipulate it to get the end result you want. I learned that on film, because that's what we had. I think these days kids are learning how to do that with digital because it's what they have. I've found that they're just as mystified by how I do what I do as I am about how they do what they do.
In either case, if you're letting your camera make all the decisions, then it's just snaps. When you manipulate the process, then you're taking photos.

[mohb]

my point is that there is scant talk of photography in the Pentax forums (and elsewhere) other than applied use of modern features.

Isn't the problem that photography is really only about the relationship between shutters and apertures and everything else is 'gear talk'?

[Eyewanders]

I have to disagree there - the K1000 is downright fancy compared to the '49 Agfa rangefinder that my dad made me master before I was allowed to use his SLR. A built in light meter? A viewfinder that shows the actual composition? The ability to uses lenses of different focal lengths? A hotshoe? Luxury!

That ignores the pinhole camera kit I've got somewhere that I meant to waste my time-expired film on. Now THAT's basic.

That's funny you say that because I was thinking of a friend of mine in NZ who takes the most fantastic pinhole landscape shots - he's a collection of wonderful little pinhole cams he's created over the years, my favorite being Mr Mustard, created from a spice tin. But really I just mean how the K1000 has become an "icon" of sorts for the "basic camera", not that it is actually THE most basic, clearly.

---------- Post added 09-08-15 at 11:34 AM ----------

Isn't the problem that photography is really only about the relationship between shutters and apertures and everything else is 'gear talk'?

Yes. And it may not be a problem at all, just something that bothers me.

[pathdoc]

I went to digital because as a medical practitioner teaching students, I needed small numbers of exposures with very fast turnaround times and easy display to large audiences, and digital was far more suited to those requirements. Once you get a taste for it, though...

Anyway, I managed to cling to film for much of that time, and I have since returned in a big way. I like my bells-and-whistles image-recording machine and if you want it you'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands, but sometimes I do like to take a step back.

It is with good reason that the vast majority of every photography class begins with a basic camera with manual control of the exposure triangle.

And with one of those sides absolutely fixed for the duration of the roll!!

The only downside at the moment where I am is the two- to three-week wait for the prints to come back. Clearly I need to be taking MORE film pictures so that they go off (and come back) at closer intervals and the learning curve doesn't have as many flat spots between the jumps. But seeing as I at least have no problems acquiring film, and have quite a few (just) time expired rolls lying around that I really should use up, that's nothing more than a damn good excuse to get out there and take some pictures.

[Eyewanders]

I went to digital because as a medical practitioner teaching students, I needed small numbers of exposures with very fast turnaround times and easy display to large audiences, and digital was far more suited to those requirements. Once you get a taste for it, though...

Anyway, I managed to cling to film for much of that time, and I have since returned in a big way. I like my bells-and-whistles image-recording machine and if you want it you'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands, but sometimes I do like to take a step back.



And with one of those sides absolutely fixed for the duration of the roll!!

The only downside at the moment where I am is the two- to three-week wait for the prints to come back. Clearly I need to be taking MORE film pictures so that they go off (and come back) at closer intervals and the learning curve doesn't have as many flat spots between the jumps. But seeing as I at least have no problems acquiring film, and have quite a few (just) time expired rolls lying around that I really should use up, that's nothing more than a damn good excuse to get out there and take some pictures.

Having film is definitely a worthy cause to shoot some film.
Again, I'm certainly not bashing digital just thinking about how it's proliferation has changed photography. (And many other factors go hand-in-hand here).
I use my digital for event work and 75% of the time for the shots of hummingbirds I love to take for the past decade... If I tried to do all I've done with those little guys on film I'd be a poor poor man. They are not the most forgiving of subjects. Though that being said, the film shots I do have of hummers are that much more precious because it wasn't chimping and bursting to get to the shot... I had to nail it - no small feat with a bird that doesn't have a concept of "stillness".

[jbondo]

Note, one directly operates the control rather than another input which then does the job for you. This gives a tactile satisfaction and a bonding between man and machine. Like the difference between a manual car shift and auto shift, or the difference between a fine mechanical watch and a plastic quartz timepiece. The pleasure comes from the means, not the end result. This is all about emotion connected to operation, rather than to the end result.

Here, too. It's about the 'journey' as well as the 'destination'. there is quite the pleasure in having that primal connection to timeless equipment while making the results. If I have a shoot that is no compromise speed and business, then AF and automation wins the day. in all other cases, I want that 'journey' and connection to the means.

[fwcetus]

At the end of the day it's the product, not the process.
Most people don't care what it took to get there, or how you did it. If they like the image, and it says something to them, then you have communicated.
The process is for the artist, not the viewer.

But that is perhaps self-contradictory (as I happened to read it - YMMV).

"At the end of the day it's the product, not the process." conflicts with "The process is for the artist, not the viewer.", UNLESS one denies that the photographer could have his/her own process-related satisfaction as the prime purpose for what he/she is doing. Doesn't the photographer have the intellectual right to enjoy the process, even if the end result is merely secondary to him/her

Even a "gear-head", perhaps interested more in the tools of the process than in pleasing a viewer of his interest, has a right to say, "At the end of the day it's the process, not the product.".

Just my 2 cents worth...