Gimme Back my Bullets
It was easier when I shot film, the quantity was less to choose from when building portfolios. I feel I spent the whole weekend re inventing and selecting my artistic nude and glamour portfolios with no results yet. I still am partial to my old film work but want to keep my selection fresh and up to date. Ugggh what to do, what to do?!
Since I went digital 4 or so years ago the number of images shot through the roof because of ease and instant results… with film, the quantity and quality ratio is alot different, at least for me. The attention to detail and composition “in the camera” was more critical and time consuming and lets not forget the processing fun, ohhh the wonderful smell of developer…Â I envy anyone who still have their darkrooms and film tanks, I miss mine!
art silva
September 14th, 2009 at 1:48 am
are you quoting Skynard?
anyway – i tried digital, but it just felt like a toy. plus, i don’t want my images to be saved and processed the same way everyone is going with it. each nikon is programed to photograph the same way – the 1s and 0s are all the same. every one of my film cameras does something different to the negative. every negative is different if you swap out different film. love shooting ilford with my rollei – love shooting kodak with my nikon fm – and love shooting foma with my diana and holga. they all have their quirks. with digital, it’s all factory fresh for me at least. if i were to shoot catalog work or something where all the images absolutely have to be identical – sure – i’d shoot digital. but i can’t see one reason to make art with it, yet.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:42 am
To me it’s about two issues – creating an image and then, creating the image in media. For creating the image…it’s just a work flow process issue. True, the digital camera takes a picture and it all looks the same (versus film using different film and camera types). It’s in the post processing using photoshop or lightroom like applicatons that you then create the variations. And I find I enjoy the freedom and abundance of choices on the creative side.
So for me, the end result is the same for both. Then it becomes more about your personal choice of tools and how you enjoy spending your time. Hours smelling chemicals in a dark room watching the magic of the image materialize (and don’t get me wrong…I do miss that sometimes) or hours in front of a computer.
In shooting, photograhers just need to disipline themselves, and not be lazy…Don’t blame the tool…it’s how you use it. Once I got the light right (using it like a poloroid), and you know you got the shot right in terms of composition and subject posing, etc…just stop. Although I do find it good sometimes to treat it like a fashion shoot and have the model slowly vary the pose while I madly click away from different perspectives. just depends. And there lies the freedom..becuase with digital you can do both and not worry about the added expense of film and processing
On the media issue….I’m sure the art world still appreciates it’s dark room developed prints more, but the inkjet world is catching up. Once you have seen an original Ansel Adams, you are spoiled forever, though!!
September 14th, 2009 at 6:30 am
To me it doesn’t come down to whither film or digital is better is comes down to the simple fact that their different.
My main reason for giving film a new look is I simply wanted a compact system that would give me images that ,though different, were of equal or close to the quality of what I’ve come to expect from the 5D and decide that the Leica M series would best meet my needs.
BTW I love the fact that I can easily fit the M4-2 and Bessa-I plus 30+rolls of film in small bag.