Dogwood

I read Paul Lester’s “Stuck on Film” post today and followed a link to Chris Klug’s “Why I Shoot Film” post. Chris has listed some of the better reasons I’ve read for shooting film–boil it down, he personally likes the results, enjoys the process and feels a tie to his past.

Those reasons I understand.

I don’t have the extended film experience Paul or Chris have but while in the Air Force (many years ago) I took photography classes, shot film and did my own developing and printing. I still have an Olympus OM-1 F-SLR and a couple of lens.

BluebellsMy point is, I have reference for what shooting film is like. But could the film experience hold me back? With digital, do we spend too much time and effort trying to emulate film results?

Many young photographers now starting out will never have that reference–they may never shoot film unless it’s required for a course or class. They’ll consider film old-folk stuff–the 33 1/3 vinyl records of photography–how they did it in the old days.

Many of these young artist will also have been raised on computers. They’ll instinctually understand digital manipulation and post-processing, using Photoshop and other applications.

They’ll have fewer prejudgements or boundaries and greater digital skills–Photography, Video, Design, Graphics and Art will be merged and redefined (see what I mean in this sample from Abduzeedo.)

No final conclusions…still thinking. ;-)

11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul
15 years ago

Great post, Earl. I think that you have a good point here. Each generation has their own music, entertainment, television, etc. I looked at those portraits in the link and, well, they left me cold. They were ‘interesting’, technically, but I felt that they were ‘sound bites’, having little vision. Nothing to say. This does not mean that what I just said is true, but it is just the feeling that I got. I want a bit more substance.

Substance is not guaranteed, to be sure, if you use a certain camera, film, light, etc. I think that it is a matter of preference. I prefer more complex music, most times, rather than the thump, thump, thump of the rap beat. Film, I think, is a bit more ‘complex’ than digital. Not in the work flow, but in the idiosyncrasies of the film itself, perhaps in the contemplative way that you could approach shooting with film at $6/36-exposure roll.

Who knows? It was good food for thought.

Anita Jesse
15 years ago

I got nothing regarding film versus digital, but I know how much I am enjoying this series of spring flowers. I am looking forward to a respite from the wind here so I can think about some macro work. Your photos have made me a bit antsy to get to it. Lovely work.

Anita Jesse
15 years ago

I am challenged by the wind, but I don’t think that’s as tough as fighting allergy symptoms. Will you be done by May?

don
don
15 years ago

I like the spring flowers which are like a breath of fresh air after our bizarre spring was so snowy and cold. Nice blossoms arranged in a pleasing fashion. The link was very interesting but not my thing.

Anita Jesse
15 years ago

That’s a relief. Did you do SoFoBoMo in April last year and fight through the symptoms?

Ove
Ove
15 years ago

Hi Earl, I’m a sofobomoer too. I read your comments on how film is perceived by people with no history in this medium. It’s interesting and it never struck me until a few weeks ago, that an entire generation has never used film cameras. It was a discussion on Leica Forum that enlightened me of the obvious. Many with me had the same experience I guess, the question was discussed for weeks:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/79912-digital-generation.html