Rongnongno Loc: FL

I have seen quite a few folks stating that they are going back to film for whatever reason. Many of these sound really angry more than anything else.

What is the source of frustration? Any clue?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I sense the same thing, Ron. Lots of chatter on the UHH regarding disgust with digital, return to film, loss of appetite for photography, and other general angst.

I think it all boils down to the enormous potential learning curve you can climb with digital. Sure, the addictive drug of Kodak (or Ilford, Agfa, Fujifilm, Lucky Film, 3M, etc.) film is gone, but then you have to buy a camera, a computer, drives, Internet service, printer, software, and learn how to use it all...

Those of us who were in the business during the transition grew up with film, then grew up again with digital. So we know why and how bits beat atoms most of the time. We learned gradually, as the digital industry evolved, so we were never overwhelmed. We learned how to use the tools efficiently and effectively, at our own pace.

However, those diving into photography for the first time have a HUGE mountain to climb! I can't imaging taking a Photoshop CC and Lightroom CC course, not knowing how to run a PC or a Mac, not understanding the ins and outs of a digital camera, etc. What comes first?

When people are shell-shocked or frustrated, they tend to retreat to what they know and feel comfortable doing. In the case of folks who used film for years, they go buy a few rolls. Maybe they like the "look". Maybe they like the smell of acetic acid or that dermatitis rash they get from hydroquinone. Maybe it's the process, or the solitude of the dark. I dunno...

I still have all my film cameras and darkroom gear, but would sell it tomorrow. I'm too deep in the digital workflow now to care about film any longer. I haven't loaded a roll in the Nikon since 2004, and haven't processed a conventional optical print since 1990.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You are probably right.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I think you completely nailed it Bill. It's similar to taking a ride on a steam train. Bags of nostalgia in the right context, like the Hogwarts Express or the Flying Scotsman, but not for everyday life except for a few niche situations.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Thanks, Peter!

Yeah, it's a weird phenomenon. I saw more evidence of it in another thread, this morning. Someone displayed a picture of his wonderful computer setup with two huge, side-by-side monitors, and another person said he could use the photo to illustrate why he still uses film! If I read between the lines, he thinks it is complicated, expensive, intimidating, etc.

In 2002 or so, we were in the middle of the optical-to-digital world transition at Herff Jones Photography Division (now part of Lifetouch). I was running the digital side of the lab. For the previous decade, we had been telling everyone that big changes were coming, and that if they wanted to be a part of them, they needed to learn to use computers.

That Spring, my boss had to send out letters to around 75 portrait film editors and optical printer operators, many of whom had 25 to 40 years of service (!). The letter informed them that the company would pay for their courses at the local community college to learn to operate Windows computers, navigate networks, and other simple chores. We would pay all expenses for any training they needed for new roles that were opening up. We made it clear that we were going 100% digital over the next five years (and we did!).

Only four people took advantage of the free tuition offer. Only four more already had the skills to make the transition to the digital side of the lab! Only six actually made the transition. We laid off 69 people... permanently! They were in shock when they called and learned that we were serious.

The same thing happened in our retail photographer group. When we started working in tethered mode, using a PC database to marry cropped images to order and subject information right at the camera, photographers quit in waves. We had about as much photographer turnover as we had had lab turnover!

It was appalling. We found out who was capable of handling change, and who wasn't. We found out who could really handle technology and apply complex concepts, and who couldn't. I felt very sorry for many folks... But change was inevitable.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

How about simply because they enjoy the analog process?

Someone engaged in the business of photography needs to keep up with the times and use the most cost-effective way to serve high paying, high volume customers. This necessarily means switching to digital and watching costs in order to make a profit.

Similarly, someone engaged in a lot of high volume image capture like wildlife or sports photography would be silly to insist on blowing wads of money on film.

But I don't think that those involved in low volume artistic pursuits are necessarily concerned about the same goals. There is an aesthetic consideration that makes film and darkroom work more appealing to them, particularly if they like to do medium and large format work and even more so if they want to do traditional B&W.

Then there are those who still use both approaches, including people like me who shoot film, scan and post process it and continue to shoot digital when it is appropriate.

I don't think people who return to film or never left it in the first place are angry and they are not stupid Luddites out to prove something. I wish we could say the same for some of the more strident advocates of digital photography.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I think you're probably right about artists... They'll pursue whatever media they like. I have a commercial side, and an artistic side, but find that digital tools most often satisfy both. I've just never liked the idea of using film, since I "went digital".

Maybe if I needed the characteristics of 4x5 or larger formats, I would temporarily revert to film for a special project... More likely, though, I'd resort to software pathways that would take me approximately where I wanted to go.

What really cemented things for me was the process of the transition. In the lab, we found digital metaphors for everything we had had in the analog world, except for the problems and limitations of the analog world. We found our comfort levels, and they superseded any sentiments we had about film.

We started the analog-to-digital transition with digital printing, which meant digital film scanning for a few years, until the cameras got to a usable professional state.

By the time the film processors came out in 2007, though, the handwriting was on the wall... Our company division was for sale. The mass portrait market as a whole was in deep decline, as social media sharing sites and mobile devices became Mom's photo album of choice!

The digital revolution has democratized photography. Our latest smart phones take better pictures than the vast majority of point-and-shoot cameras from a decade ago.

We're raising a generation of kids who've never known film photography as I knew it. I'm 60. My 17-year-old twins grew up editing video in grammar school. We gave them digital cameras when they were in fourth grade.

What really galls me, and many others, though, is the persistence of some educators to INSIST that their students learn film photography first, before learning digital. There is absolutely no, and I mean ZERO justification for that. Teach a class in it, but please don't make it a prerequisite! Most of the world has moved on, and photo educators and art professors need to acknowledge that. The MEDIUM is not the message... The MESSAGE is the message.

Here on UHH, there are many in the 55+ age range who grew up without computers, with film. Many of them had a photography hobby in their youth, or took photography classes back when there was no digital workflow. They have, or had, a comfort level with that.

Now, as these folks retire, many of them want to return to photography as a hobby, or they have more time to engage in it. But they discover two things:

1) Film, film equipment, and processing are no longer ubiquitous. The supplies are a lot more expensive, and harder to find. But in small volumes, for those with used equipment, film is still less costly.

2) Digital has that learning curve mountain to climb, and the system you need or want can get really expensive, really quickly!

Both of those send some people reeling away from digital capture and back to film capture. And yes, a few of them are running scared.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's not limited to the photography curriculum.

My wife once managed the office at the Anthropology department of a major university where several professors continued to teach from the same notes and texts that they used several decades back when they first got their PHDs. You might think that Anthropology and Archaeology would be a safe heaven for such an approach - unless you have been following the subjects on Nova and other up-to-date presentations.

It always gets me into trouble when I say it, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." And as Woody Allen said, "And those who can't teach, teach gym.”

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

So true!

I had a Humanities and Religion professor at Davidson College in 1975 tell me that recorded popular music was only good for passing fads, and that modern music would never surpass the classical works of the 17th — 19th century. (At the time, I was Operations Manager for the campus FM radio station. We had about 18,000 records in our collection, so I knew a little about recorded music, audio, and recording technologies.)

Anyway, I had this big argument with him over how musicians of the late 20th century were composing their works with multi-track tape machines, and I had pointed out that recording tools had become the new scoring tools.

I pointed out that musicians were finally able to leave legacies of their own performances, and not just the scores, so they were able to communicate DEFINITIVE, original performances for the masses to hear, with no intermediary interpretation by some mis-guided director, band, or orchestra!

I argued that our music department was a dead end for not having a recording studio and formal courses in the recording studio technologies. He thought I was nuts... got very insulted that anyone would question the value of the processes of antiquity. I wasn't questioning that value, just trying to update its methodologies.

Of course, since he knew almost nothing about recording technologies, he felt threatened and intimidated by my remarks — and yet, I was being politely benign in my assertions.

To be fair, in 1975, liberal arts colleges were hardly familiar with *any* sort of recording technology! Most of the audio gear on campus was in my radio production studio, and that was left over from commercial stations of the 1950s and '60s.

Fast forward to 2016... The music department at Davidson now has a recording studio... MIDI keyboards and computers... But the students probably have more recent recording tools on their PC laptops, Mac notebooks, iPads, and iPhones than the college has in the studio.

Oh, and my high school gym teacher? He had NO IDEA how to teach gym! He was an ex-marine-cum-football-coach, who died of a massive heart attack at 47. One too many post-game Big Macs...

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

So true, and artists should pursue their muse in any manner that suits them. Large format film or smartphone. Philosophically it makes no difference.



Totally agree. It's like telling people they have to learn to ride a horse before they can learn to drive a vehicle.



Hmmm! I mostly agree, but I think there is more to this than just film as a medium. I wonder how many of the "anti-digital" folks actually did their own chemical processing or had a darkroom capability in their own home? Developing film at home is pretty straight forward, but printing seems to take a bit more effort and investment. Clearly we have many members who do that, or have ventured into that realm but they seem to be the exception. The steam train enthusiasts that I alluded to.

When we look at digital we certainly have some people that are overwhelmed by the complexity of the cameras, but the other side is the post processing. This is where the issue seems to be for many. Those of us that have been involved with computers during our lives have had a long time to scale the learning curve and become comfortable with a computer-based workflow for photography and many other things, so the only learning curve is the specific software package.

However, computers (and printers) are now ubiquitous, every home has one (almost)! It's much easier to use the computer that you already have than to set up a darkroom, but there is now an expectation that you will do your own PP and printing instead of sending it out to the processing company. With that expectation, if your computer skills are basic then suddenly you do have that learning mountain to climb which can be very intimidating or at least tedious. I can see why some people would resent being forced into that world.

On the other hand, if you are the sort of person that embraces change then you look at it as opening up a world of new opportunities. Thankfully my 88 year old mother-in-law is the adventuresome type. For many years she has participated in a fundraising luncheon for her church. People sponsor a themed table. Her approach was frequently to create decorated plates to support her various themes with a decoupage approach. When I showed her what could be done with a scanner, basic graphic software and a color printer her immediate reaction was "will you teach me to do that?" For that Christmas she wanted a scanner / printer.

Three years later, she's getting all excited about doing this year's designs all by herself. She hunts down the images she wants, edits them to the correct circular print size, makes sure she has plenty of ink and photo grade paper, prints them and produces her themed plates. It's all about attitude and thankfully she has boat loads of attitude!

So, in conclusion, I tend to agree with you. It isn't about film, it's all about attitude, and some people won't deal with change while others embrace it.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

EXACTLY. When we fail to change, fail to adapt to new circumstances, we die. Or at least, we get left behind.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Ha! As someone who spent the first seven years of my working career as a teacher I can relate to that although when I heard it first it was " Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't teach, teach teachers!" So no trouble from me, since I got out of teaching over thirty years ago as a career, although quite a bit of what I do could still be termed education related in many senses.

There is always something to be said for leading by example.

If your wife is an anthropologist you both might enjoy this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A2481RJsUg

I was going to link to another one by Genevieve, but apparently there has been a copyright issue so the audio has been muted. Sort of defeats the object of a keynote speech!

anotherview Loc: California

Your comment pretty much covers the ground of this matter.

I remember a few years ago talking with several experienced film photographers. They said the same thing: Digital photography allows more control.

In my opinion, digital photography provides an easier way to learn. A user can set the camera to Auto mode and then shoot away. Eventually, when ready, the user can move to other camera modes. Plenty of workshops exist and online tutorials abound for learning how to do digital photography.

I believe digital photography has produced a revolution in doing photography, all to the good. Thousands of the billions of snapshooters out there will take up photography seriously, and then become the master photographers of the future.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

This reminds me of a photography instructor --- guy with a PhD --- who INSISTED his students learn film photography before they were allowed to study digital photography. He was so full of crap it was oozing out his ears. We had a "spirited discussion" that ended in my departure from his office with an agreement to send him a course outline for teaching digital photography from scratch. I sent him the outline... He has yet to respond. That was five years ago.

There is NO reason why photography cannot be taught without a single reference to film. Digital photography may be costly, but is a valid, and complete replacement for the ways of the past. The tools are an order of magnitude more powerful than those they replace.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Actually there are some pro's and con's to using film over digital. I like shooting Pentax and most of my lenses are Full Frame. Now Pentax has released a Full frame digital SLR I could buy a K1 for 1800 euro. I also have a Canon DSLR with 2 full frame lenses. I also have an EOS 600 body and a Pentax K1000 body. Even an old Zenith body (M42).

With either of these bodies I can shoot a roll of 24 exposure color 35mm film and get it developed for 10 euro today Black & White and slide film is more expensive I would have to send it away and buy online.

For larger formats 120 isn't too much of a stretch and very affordable and larger film sizes are still available if you want to go that way.

I am still far more likely to just shoot with my K5, maybe portraits might be better with the bokeh of a full frame.

The hardest camera to shoot with would be the zenit E with its external metering, followed by the K1000 and then the EOS 600.

I would have to earn the shots I get with those camera's

Without the use of an LCD screen and histogram and instant review it is quite tough. You can pretend to give yourself the same limitations on digital but it is very hard not to peek.

It is good to challenge yourself and it is fun to challenge yourself too. It may be a male trait but we tend to like old things. If you had the opportunity to drive a 1960's sports car wouldn't you take it?

It's all about enjoyment for me not anger and if by using film I really learn how to better judge a scene and make the right choices it will help me do better with digital too.

As a lifelong student, it tends to be the mistakes you make which teach you more than the stuff you get right. some of your strongest memories are from when you suffered some discomfort.