Old Dutch

I see you are from CA. What a surprise. Rather sweepingly dismissive, perhaps?

Film still has its place, especially among the Hollywood set when they want to make a real Movie. Spielberg, et al, still use it, and will continue to do so because it is well, better in some applications. As do hordes of aficianado's across the globe, for the same reason. 3 Episodes of Star Wars in razzle-dazzle digital damned near killed off the franchise. Spielberg/Lucas revived it; On glorious, minutely detailed and perfectly saturated film. But what do they know.

But, I suppose we should all just go away now and submit to the relentless tide of, ummm, opinion. I will keep my F4, though, and use it only in the dark, on a tripod, with the mirror up, except for the occasional use of my pair of SB-24's. I hope to never encounter anyone who might agree with me; just might start a "return to" movement. By the way, are they "bitter clingers"?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

To use your own assessment, baloney. There are things that each medium can do that the other can't. It's only prudent to take a bit more care when using film, as one is usually limited in how many exposures one will devote to a particular subject. I use the same metering care when shooting either film or digital. Like any tool, the meter is only as good as the skill level of the person using it.

I recently photographed a small building at night. One exposure was all it took. I knew what the photograph was going to look like before I even pressed the shutter release. I didn't need to "chimp", nor could I.
--Bob

anotherview Loc: California

Good for you. I presented a general assessment of the notion that film-era photographers take a more-careful approach to doing photography, thereby significantly distinguishing film photography from digital photography.

In this regard, it helps to take account of snapshooters and skilled photographers separately instead of lumping them. They do differ in their approach, likewise in the film era and in the digital era. Skilled photographers by definition will practice with conscious awareness to various constraints in the field of photography. Snapshooters point and shoot with at best only nominal concern for such constraints.

Digital photography positively does remove one constraint: It allows multiple exposures regardless of their intrinsic value. This fact riles some film-era photographers. It shouldn't.

Let me give an example. I live in the forest. A couple days ago, two deer visited my property, one in the nearby clearing and one in the underbrush. Using my digital camera, I took 55 shots of the deer in the clearing, each shot done with some care, primarily with effective composition in mind. I did only an initial adjustment to ISO after consulting the Histogram in the camera monitor.

As a rule, a film-era photographer would've been constrained to a fraction of the shots. The advantage here arises from a matter of physics, not dogma.

Going a little further, I've found that taking a second shot of a subject provides insurance, because now and then the first shot will prove deficient. A film-era photographer would likely feel the constraint of having only so many exposures on the roll of film in his camera. Digital photography has dissolved that constraint.

By the way, I take nothing away from film-era photography. It has laid the foundation of modern photography married to digital means. Some critics even say that film photography raised this medium of human expression to an artform.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You seem to be contradicting the statement you made in a previous post, where you wrote, "I have to address the notion that film-era photographers took more care to prepare for an exposure than do digital-photographers. In a word, Baloney!"
--Bob

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Which of my photographs is my favorite? The couple I'll keep from the thousand I'll shoot on my digital tomorrow.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I think the key word in that sentence is MORE. After using film for decades and switching to digital methods, I concluded that photography is photography. I don't find myself making more or fewer considerations or taking more or less care with digital images than I did with film. I do make more exposures, but not a lot more...

Even in my film days, when I burned through several 20-roll bricks of Ektachrome each month, I made a lot of duplicate exposures. Film scratches were a very real issue with 'chrome films. And because we only have one original per exposure, making two exposures gave us a backup OR an image to use in another show.

Good as it was, Ektachrome 5071 Duplicating film, and it's cousin, SO-366 Duplicating film for electronic flash, were never as good as having a second original, and duplicates of duplicates looked weird. Digital imaging makes every duplicate file the same, unless you develop a new image from the original.

Bits beat atoms for a smooth, fast workflow. Atoms beat bits for initial investment in gear, in many cases. The look MAY be a bit different, usually based on the experience and knowledge of the photographer.

I have every negative I ever made after 1965. Many are priceless to me. In that sense, film and digital imaging are equal, in their abilities to preserve memories. Either capture medium produces prints. Digital has the edge in the immediacy of sharing images, but scanners allow film to catch up eventually.

In the end, use what you like. Few people viewing our work care about the medium. They care about the message.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

My film exposures/negatives/slides, whatever one wants to call them, date back close to yours, late '66 for me. The black and white negatives far outnumber the color slides, which outnumber the color negatives.

As I mentioned previously, there are things each of the mediums can do that the other cannot. In some cases, it's picking the tool of one's choice based on the anticipated final result.

I agree with your sentiment of doing what pleases you. The viewers will not be that interested in how the print got there.
--Bob

Jay Drew Loc: Boise, Id.

anotherview Loc: California

How so? Am I missing something again?

TJBNovember Loc: Long Island, New York

Not too long ago, a few months, my neighbor put in a request for her daughter. She’s attending the NYC School of Visual Arts and needed a 35mm camera for her class work. Guess that says something about whether film is an endangered format or not.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Film will be with the art community for a long time.

Commercial photographers use little of it these days, simply because of its labor-intensive and inconvenient workflow. Nearly all media distribution systems are digital now. So film users in the commercial world must scan their film or prints to get them where they are going.

Artists don't necessarily have that restriction... They can print optically to traditional silver halide media, or they can scan and print with high-end inkjet printers or digital silver halide printers, or they can scan and distribute the digital image files.

anotherview Loc: California

Thanks for presenting simple alternatives.

anotherview Loc: California

Film photography has its contingent of diehards who gained their proficiency during the film era. They cannot let it go for digital photography.

Further, they insist on carrying their view forward by preaching it to youngsters. Their contrarian practice supposes that film-era photography offers something not found in digital photography -- usually boiled down as (1) that thrill of watching an image emerge in front of their eyes or (2) the restraint of taking more care in setting up a shot due to limited film roll exposures.

My advice to novices: One, learn digital photography first. Later, if you choose, learn film photography.

Two, skip the history of photography. Concentrate on learning the craft of photography. Later, if you choose, you can read all about the history of photography.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Hopefully, you are not in a position to influence large numbers of people interested in learning the craft.
—Bob

anotherview Loc: California

Others here may find value in my comments regarding the the craft of photography and related matters. That's about the size of it.