Should Every Photographer Try Film Once?

A few comments on all the comments from yesterday...

First of all, I recommended the "Leica as Teacher" exercise for a specific kind of student, namely, the young beginner who is serious and ambitious, as well as willing and able to put a large amount of time and effort into learning photography for a period of at least a year. That's a tiny, tiny minority of all photographers. Secondly, I recommended it as a learning experience—part of that theoretical cohort's education, not a recommendation for ongoing practice. So no one need get in a bother about whether it's "the right tool for the job" or whether there are other ways to accomplish the same results, etc. Those things weren't, and aren't, the point.

But here's the reason for the recommendation: first, because using a manual, mechanical camera with a few simple controls and immediate responsiveness (such as minimal shutter lag with no optical viewfinder blackout) will teach the basics of camera controls and essential shooting skills like no modern electronic camera possibly can. The student would learn things like placing plane of focus and aperture and shutter speed choice rigorously and well. He or she would also be "taught" by the camera to time the exact moment of exposure without viewfinder blackout. Again, it doesn't matter that modern technology can take thirty exposures before the press of the shutter. The point, first, is learning the skill.

Thirdly, I specified B&W film for a specific and considered didactic rationale, and I meant it and I still mean it. It's because intensive drilling in learning to see luminances only—tone, or values, only—with the distraction and decorativeness of color temporarily but absolutely removed, will help most people to see better. And, with the aforementioned manual, mechanical rangefinder, B&W film is the only way to make such seeing the only option, which is essential for the learning process as I've conceived and described it. The fact that you "can" convert a color file to B&W in post is absolutely immaterial in this case: that just means you won't absolutely have to learn how to see in B&W. Again, I'm asserting that it's valuable for learning and I believe that. I believe it would pay permanent dividends for the rest of the photographer's working life.

These are visualizing skills and drills in fundamentals, invaluable for education. Naturally they do not need to be permanent choices, and no one's claiming they should be.

Here's my answer
But then, on to the question—should every photographer try film once?

Considering the educational experience of trying older methods (i.e., film), in my opinion it comes down to two things that experience tells me most students would enjoy and be interested in. One is looking through a view camera. There is no better way to comprehend what a lens is doing, and to understand, viscerally and with immediacy, what photography is capturing. The world seen on a groundglass is captivating, and enchanting. The other is seeing a print come up in the developer, an experience that a wide range of photographers remember as, if not formative, then at least a meaningful landmark of their introductions to the mystery and wonder of the art*.

Both of these experiences can be provided merely in an educational context. There's no need to make every student buy a view camera, and certainly no sense in recommending that every student learn darkroom printing. And of course, it should go without saying that it makes zero sense to suggest that anyone should build their own darkroom in this day and age. (Unless they're doing the "Leica as Teacher" year, but not necessarily even then—Ilford XP2 in an M camera, commercially processed and proofed and occasionally printed, would work fine for that.)

When I was a photography teacher (in the '80s), I provided both these experiences to my students. I brought my own view camera to school and let the students look at each other through it—it was unfailingly an excited, animated class that was memorable for most students, even casual ones who didn't have any real or abiding interest in becoming photographers. I also made a set of "perfect" negatives and, as a class, we went into the darkroom on the very first day of class and everyone made a test strip and a print—that was also a day that made students happy and "nourished their enthusiasm" in Ansel Adams's phrase.

These days, I might have students look through a 4x5 or 5x7 view camera in several settings indoors and then out, and then make a contact print from a pre-made "perfect" 4x5 or 5x7 negative. Depending on the facilities, that could take as little as two class periods.

Beyond that, though, for those not doing the "Leica as Teacher" year, I wouldn't see much need to do more than that with film. Unless of course you want to.

But those things are just cool, and would be fun and informative for most any younger photographer to experience (and it's too bad most of them will never be able to). That's not "just me"—I've heard variations on these themes from hundreds, maybe even thousands of photographers, across many years.

Mike

*We might add to this the experience of seeing a well-made large negative on a light box before making a positive of it (seeing Paul Strand's negatives was where Ansel had his own epiphany). A further exercise might be making and using a pinhole camera, as several readers suggested.

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Piotr B.: "Looks like I got pulled into shooting film, and I blame you.  :-)

"Your most recent post about rangefinder cameras (the one that featured the Mamiya 6 among others) sparked a new flame of interest in me. I always kinda wanted to try film and was always a bit intrigued by the mysterious beast that is a rangefinder. Why mysterious? I never used one. I even had no idea how the viewfinder works until very recently.

"And once I started reading more, I knew I'm in trouble. That Mamiya triggered my GAS and happens to be a killer combo. Film? Check. Rangefinder? Check. Medium format? Check. Wept a bit when I found out how much it costs. Found some other cool cameras and wept some more. After more digging and research, found that Fujica can be had for reasonable lump of money. So I'll settle for that.

"For the time being, I just bought an old, low end TLR (never used one before, BTW) on the cheap and just took out my first roll of film. What a weird experience, looking through that 'viewfinder.' And needing to wait to see my photos, even weirder.

"I liked what my failed attempt at OC/OL/OY challenge did to my skills, but I noticed I fell back to bad habits with the convenience of modern digital cameras (I did the challenge with Sigma DP2M, which, while digital, imposes limitations that are draconian for someone used to modern cameras). So I'm hoping that going film will do me more good.

"And since I decided to torture myself with clunky mechanical contraptions, I also thought it would be a good idea to come up with some kind of a project to give this whole experiment some meaning. I'm kinda sick of shooting just to try to take some pretty pictures.

"But in the end, I consider the whole affair to be a learning experience. I just hope I will actually learn something, as opposed to realizing this whole photography thing was just a meaningless pastime of a bored man who really just wanted to play with some toys.  :-)

"So in time, I will either thank you or curse you.  :-)  "

Michael Ferron: "Though I started with digital I kept bumping into these B&W film forums. The talk of chemistry, technique, exposure and times fascinated me so in 2004 I bought a beautiful Nikon FM2 and gave film a try.

"Never looked back. I just recently purchased a Toyo Field 45 and am really enjoying the experience. Oh, the question? No, I would not recommend shooting film to anyone. It's very time consuming. But If the calling is heard the film will find them, says the 'on occasion' wise man (me)."

Paul De Zan: "Due to all of the rangefinder and film blather on this very fine free website recently, I've just loaded my M4 with Tri-X for the first time in about nine years. On one level: what a drag! I could have taken 36 pictures with any digital camera in the time it took to put film in this relic. On a different level: what a treat to handle this magnificent hunk of metal, like traveling back to the pre-electronic era, to the way the world once was. Pleasant as it is, this has zip to do with actually taking pictures and only half-zip to do with conventional film photography. Without the chemical darkroom process, which is absolutely going to be a bridge too far for most people these days, there isn't any real connection to the traditional silver halide-based experience. I'll shoot a roll, get it processed and scan to Lightroom; anything good will end up on the Internet somewhere. Beyond the experience of working with a mechanical camera and its manual focus and exposure control (which you can do with a digital camera if you're so inclined), it's very nearly the same thing as digital workflow, just with added cost and some (possibly gratifying) delay before seeing your results. Lovely as the relics are, especially to those of a certain age, it doesn't take a lot of Aristotelian pondering to understand why film was swept away as quickly as it was."

David Aiken: "The 'every' in the question mandates that the answer be 'no.' If the answer were 'yes' the statement being questioned would be a rule and as we all know, rules are made to be broken.

"The question is really how useful is it to shoot film as one element in your learning process. I started out shooting black-and-white film in the days before digital, and then I dropped photography for a long period. When I came back to it I bought a digital camera and discovered two things. First, I could no longer 'see' in black and white. Seeing luminance is an acquired skill as you point out, but it's one you lose if you don't keep using it, and I wonder how long you would retain it if you just shot black-and-white film for a year as a learning experience. Second, that I had to unlearn a lot of things which had become ingrained and which I found myself doing automatically. For example it took time to get out of the habit of exposing for the shadows and to start exposing for the highlights instead, to learn to stop worrying about crushing the shadows and to worry instead about preserving highlights. If you're going to end up shooting digital, then learning to shoot by shooting film teaches some wrong lessons as well as teaching some good lessons.

"I have to admit that much of my photographic 'taste' was formed by my experience shooting black-and-white film. Even though I now shoot digital colour, I still find myself processing for the mid tones and shadow detail with good overall contrast, and less saturation than many people seem to go for. But that sometimes makes me wonder whether I'm trying to recapture the look of film rather than trying to get the best that I could from digital. Film and digital have different strengths and weaknesses and I don't think that trying to get the best of one of them from the other is the way to get the best result that the other has to offer. Are the people who eventually get the best out of digital going to be those who have no experience of film? All of the photographers I regard as really getting the results I most admire from film had experience with film only (OK, Cartier-Bresson and maybe some others had experience with painting and drawing but no other photographic medium than film).

"Can experience shooting film be detrimental to getting the best results from digital? If it can, then how much experience with film is too much experience with film? Should it be avoided entirely or, for example, should those who do try shooting film shoot colour slide stock where they would have to learn to preserve the highlights rather than exposing for the shadows as you learn with black-and-white film? What is the best film experience for those who are going to shoot digital?

"I have no answers, just a lot of 'what if' questions. The best advice I can offer to anyone wanting to learn how to photograph is to try what interests you and to see what you learn from the experience but stay open to the opportunities that present themselves. You don't have to take advantage of every unanticipated opportunity but unanticipated opportunities that you do take up can become some of the most important steps in your life."

Comments

[Ger Lawlor]

Can blogs have 'like' buttons? this is great!

[Herman Krieger]

I got started in photography in high school with a 4x5 Speed Graphic. The Leica came much later.

[JG]

Instead of using film, which slows down the feedback loop that is so important to learning anything, why not have a digital camera converted to monochrome-only operation instead?

There are now several companies offering this service and at least one of them does so for (what strikes me as) a reasonably modest price; i.e., a lot less than what a years's worth of film / developing / scanning or printing is likely to cost.

This will not only address your reason(s) for advocating the use of film, but also provide the photographer with immediate feedback, which is far more effective than providing feedback a few hours or days later.

[Lesley]

About a thousand years ago, in my first year as a teacher at a new school, I was asked to teach a grade 9 photography class. The thirty students were there mostly because they didn't want to take any of the other electives and because they wanted to wander the halls of the school, poking their heads into classrooms with the camera as an excuse. I had no budget, three cameras and three enlargers for the whole class. It was a battle to keep the students involved, busy and under control.
To teach darkroom basics we first made photograms, and to get them to understand how cameras work, we made pinhole cameras. But then what? A view camera would have been fantastic, but it wasn't even an option. I wangled a sturdy refrigerator box from a local store and turned it into a giant pinhole camera. On a sunny day my four most unruly students carried it out to a hill near the school and one by one, the students walked into the giant camera and saw the image of the school and the trees projected onto the back surface. It was fun, physical, and they learned something that day.

[John Shriver]

Yes, watching that first print develop is transformative magic.

That's why I still shoot B&W film, even if you don't get to watch, there's something so wonderful about the process of developing film. It makes me so happy. Even though I know I then have to scan it.

Plus, there's no digital process like Kodak 2475 Recording Film (grain!). (Well, maybe there's some software that can simulate that grain, but I'm not in a rush to find it.)

[marcin wuu]

And last but not least, it'll teach you to take the lens cap off before shooting. In a great BBC documentary about Brian Duffy - "The Man Who Shot The Sixties", he recalls substituting for Irving Penn at a portrait shoot of a famous German conductor Otto Van Klemperer, where he forgot to take the cap off, cause he was used to SLR's and never shot Leica before. So there's that. Or just shoot Hasselblad. Snobbery factor should be about the same, and at the very least you won't end up with a whole roll of black frames.

[Stan B.]

Also recommended, photographing with one focal length for one year- eventually covering those lenses you would most consider using. It goes miles in helping you understand how each particular focal length sees and interprets various scenes and subject matter. Not only does it help you in effectively selecting what tool is best suited for the job- it also helps one crop in camera, when it most counts, without the loss of any valuable film or sensor real estate.

[mark]

I didn't chime in to respond to your original question, but as one
who has used film from the 1960's right up to the present I agree with your analysis. Compositionally, nothing compares to seeing the world through a view camera. I find use of the rise and fall movements so beneficial...you can set the horizon line exactly where you want it to be. And the shift...moving the subject ever so much to the right and or left without having to change the camera position so the composition is "just right". And of course perspective control....no converging verticals in those architectural shots. And the process..closing the shutter, stopping down the lens, inserting the film holder, removing the dark slide and then making sure everything is just so...then triggering the shutter.
You feel more involved...you feel more invested with what your are doing. Instead of snap, snap, snap, snap....mindless shooting...or to be kinder "intuitive" behavior, you slow down and really think about what you are doing. Obviously subject matter is limited compared to more portable equipment. But once you start shooting with a view camera you establish work habits that will
make you a better photographer. I do shoot digital and I love the
instant feedback and the versatility of the medium. But every so often I have to get back to the View Camera and enjoy the tranquility it offers.

As an addendum..it is true...seeing your first print coming up in
the developer is magic. Something everyone should have the
opportunity to experience.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

I really do understand your logic and sentiments, Mike. You understandably believe that becoming familiar with photography's most fundamental technologies - ISO, lens focal lengths, lens apertures, et.al.- will better-enable "students" to enjoy photography and to develop skills for future professional or avocational use. Maybe.

But if the "students" you have in mind are truly of the sub-20 year old age I have my doubts. Every indication I see is that photography's "fundamentals" are in the process of changing in ways that will nearly obliterate the usefulness of those lessons. The days of the single-lens camera, for example, are drawing to a close faster than may be evident. The degree of digital mediation in even the most straight-forward photography will make today's version of digital photography quaint. The technologies are very nearly ready. The money is ready and already being invested, primarily in surveillance applications.

By 2035-2050 a Sony A7R3 or Nikon D850 will seem like Toyo view cameras to young and practicing photographers. But I'll bet that there will still be folks making images with film of some kind!

[Michael]

Oddly enough, the day you posted "Leica as Teacher" was the day my inherited Leica IIIc came back from repair and cleaning. Today was the first day I've ever used a film camera, Tri-X. I was not trying to be artistic, just photographing where I was. I've not see the results yet.

With the Leica the last steps are focus and shoot. With my digital camera, bringing the camera to my eye was the first step and then I adjust my settings. Preparing for an exposure with a digital camera feels slower.

I had to consult my exposure table to determine my settings then set the camera rather than adjusting the settings with buttons and seeing what the results might be in real time. It caused me to think about my exposure before bringing the camera to my eye.

My old eyes are blurry on a good day, trying to determine if I was in focus through the rangerfinder was near impossible. It was frustrating for the first 5 exposures then I let it go. Focus as best I can then concentrate on the composition.

When learning to use a film camera, keep a record of each frame's settings. There ain't no metadata with film.

After you press the exposure button, immediately wind the camera to the next frame.

The camera I happen to have does not matter too much when I am having so much fun with photography.

[Omer]

Mike, is this is some kind of revenge for when some old timer, back in the day, made you do some wet plate?

[Animesh Ray]

I don't know if this is true, but Cartier-Bresson is thought to have said, your first 10,000 photos are your worst, implying that you need to shoot about 10,000 frames to justice to the mythical "Leica as a Teacher" type of experience. To commercially develop a roll of film, with no proof or scan, it takes about $12 per roll of 36 exposures. That comes to over $3,200 total in processing charges for 277 rolls of film. Add to that the cost of a simple rangefinder camera in the used market (~$200-600 with a single lens on it). Add to that the cost of 277 rolls of film on ebay (about $1,600), and a used negative scanner for about $200. The total cost would be over $5,000. On the other hand, you can get a new Leica Q (full-frame with a fixed 28mm lens) for $4,250. You can keep it beyond your first 10,000 frames with no additional cost.

[Mike Plews]

I think the fact that you compose with a view camera under a dark cloth while looking at an image that is upside down, backwards and with very limited depth of focus presents a teachable moment.
This encourages looking past subject matter to composition and tonal relationships. It is also good for your soul to go under a dark cloth from time to time and just lose yourself for a while.
Maybe the camera manufacturers could add a "view camera" setting for live view that replicates this way of seeing. Nice way to clear your head if you get stumped.

[Craig]

I got serious about photography in the early 1970's and did it professionally for several years, so obviously started with film. Today I'm 100% digital and don't miss the darkroom at all. I'm not really sure using film is the thing that teaches us something though (other than how to use film). I believe what creates the learning experience is taking away automatic exposure and zoom lenses. I find two things lacking in the people I tutor; they don't understand the usefulness of the various exposure settings and they don't have a mental image of the field of view of various focal lengths. In the 70's I used all prime lenses and I know what a particular focal length is going to look like. People using zooms never build that mental catalog of focal lengths.

[Michael Mejia]

All of those things that Mike suggests are fundamental to photography but are much more quickly learned with the digital camera. Relative brightness and darkness, color balance, focus, depth of field can all be appreciated in an instant by looking at the LCD and the histogram. The shortness of the learning loop is critical. The lag between firing the shutter and looking at the film or a contact sheet or a test print is remote compared to the instant of review while the desire of the image is still fresh in the mind.

It has been suggested that there is no need to use film to learn these things. The idea that black and white is somehow essential is a mistaken notion. That is, it is simply a particular slice of limitations that we learn to manage. Filtration affecting the appearance of certain colors? All much more easily done and more accurately done in a digital camera.

In some sense using film is like a clever trick like doing photography with one hand tied behind your back. I am reminded of assisting a photographer many years ago and loading infinite numbers of 120 and the Hasselblad backs. Late at night as things got boring we would practice loading A-12 backs behind our back with our eyes closed. Yes, there were things to learn by doing that: the fundamental position of the rollers, getting it under the lip, inserting the film into the holder, making sure the slide was in the right way. You had to be mindful of those things. But all it taught you was had allowed in A-12 back in the dark behind your back.

One of the most prominent elements I hear in these dozens of contributions is the value of the view camera. I get the view camera; there is nothing better for demonstrating the principles of focus or bellows extension. But after that, there's the mechanics of loading film Holders (see A-12 above) and the processing and drying and then plopping around in the dark room… Just shoot me now.

So, sketching around with the Leica and Tri-X? I can feel the experience in my minds eye having done that. However, I get the identical spirit with my Fuji X 100 with the much greater advantage of working the image, framing, exposure, color on my feet.

[gary bunton]

Just loaded my m4 with some Acros, been a while. I Still have a wet darkroom at my disposal. I was 11 when I saw my first print come up, I recently calculated I have about 40,000 hours in darkroom time over the last 40 years. Mike's approach to learning is certainly valid, I know it's helped my image making. guess I need to get out my Sinar soon.

[MikeR]

I have my Lumix LX100 viewfinder set to display monochrome. Does that count? (Mainly, I'm trying to avoid getting distracted by colors.)

As many have offered, there is nothing like the experience of seeing a printed image slowly materialize in the developing tray. If the bug is gonna bite, that'll do it. My first encounter was at a USAF site on the Pinetree Line in coastal Labrador that had its own fully equipped darkroom. I had no negs of my own, just printed whatever others left lying around.

[Kevin Willoughby]

I don't disagree with any of this, but I'm curious: would you use Polaroid to provide quicker feedback between "click" and "print"? At least for the introductory sessions??

My own evolution was tediously slow because I had confused two separate endeavors. I wanted to be a photographer. I am an engineer and as such, I can respect and enjoy the engineering a fine camera. So I bounced between Minox and Crown Graphic, willy-nilly. The Minox is a true jewel of fine precision engineering. The Graphic is a marvelously pragmatic design -- brute force engineering at its best. It wasn't until I realized that photography and camera collecting are two different, only slightly related, endeavors that I could admire the interesting cameras on the bookshelf and use less interesting cameras that matched my personal style. I'm not sure how widespread the confusion between the gadgetry and the photography is, but I'm probably not unique.

[PDLanum]

Really? You pick Leica? One of the most expensive cameras on the planet to be the one you start with?

I know that all these millennials are supposed to be rich, but Leica? Why not send them to a pawn shop and get a manual SLR or manual anything as opposed to a $4K camera to learn on. Sheesh, don't you remember how much time it took for you to get the money together to learn?

Remember HBC was the son of a very rich man or are you saying that only privileged people should be using film.

[See:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/why-it-has-to-be-a-leica.html

--Mike]

[Bryce Lee]

I wonder how many of your current crop of readers have never used film? Always digital?

That noted I learned more from using a beat-up however still light tight Horseman 8x10 view camera.

Learned how to do the swings and tilts to avoid that annoying overhead light hanging in the middle of the wanted image, by moving, adjusting and playing with the swings and tilts.. The 4x5 back on the 8x10 view camera allowed many things to be done.

What I really do miss is the ability to place the Polaroid film holder on the back, under the glass and take an exposure, just to make sure everything looked good. Polaroid then was somewhat less in price than sheet colour film, so a B&W Polaroid image would let you know
if everything was just right.

One job which really proved what a field camera could do was the interior of an old Orthodox church out in the "then" country. Magnificent inside, it had ceiling lamps hanging down inside, all candle powered and the congregation wanted the photo of the interior with the candles burning. Get the tall tripod, mount the camera on top, climb the high step ladder with black cloth in hand and start working,
without the illuminated candles. Did six Polaroid shots and the priest in charge wanted to look at each, and make comments. The candles were lit. with a long taper, the colour film was inserted. the exposure was done twice, different exposure times and the lights were snuffed. Did one quick photo with candles freshly snuffed and a trail of smoke above each. Eerie!.
My mentor at the time supervised me and he used a small lab that processed sheet film and did the printing.
This was 45 years ago; Today the church is gone the whole area swallowed by an enormous housing development. Sad, in a way.

[Michael Perini]

If a student of photography is truly interested in a deeper understanding of Photography in practice, process and history, it is hard to imagine a more helpful primer than actually seeing a lens draw an image on a ground glass or a picture emerge from a white sheet of paper. The investment of a year learning to control a mechanical device and a photochemical process, makes it richer still.
As you have already said , most people will not have that level of desire, but for those who do, it is an unforgettable experience.
It is not a 'necessary' experience, just a helpful and wonderful one if you are one of those who care to dig deeper.
,

[Rob L.]

Amusingly, I read this after ordering 2000ml of a new Mono-bath developer - which I know is not going to be the panacea it claims, but I have hopes that it might make developing a workable negative for my Scouts a reality.

If you are an artist that uses cameras, I'm sure there a compelling case for film unless that's what you want to work with, but at this point, I do think there's something to the physicality of film and development that's of import to folks who consider themselves photographers. Film as hazing ritual, I guess:) But the craft matters, and informs the art.

I make things out of wood using a computer controlled mill, a hobbyist contraption that allows me to use my Illustrator and vector art skills and apply it to the physical world. But I now also have a traditional router table, chisels, hand tools, that I've become more proficient with - I'm not a woodworker, yet, but I understand so much more now that when just using the mill. There's some of that with film, especially view cameras and the like, in having to understand how light is shaped and recorded. You learn an eye for that, and the camera is irrelevant.

And, film bodies are fun for the photo hobbyist that is in it for the hardware - if the result you're getting is from the experience, then they are still the most satisfying way to play.

[Cliff]

I started in this infernal/beautiful pastime in the film. One thing I haven’t seen mentioned specifically is not truly a product of film as a medium but Is a product of the process of shooting (and printing) black and white film. The opportunity cost. Digital has changed the way I shoot, there is no real added cost to shooting hundreds of pictures, just a little time culling. In the days of a closet darkroom the opportunity cost was very high. Cost of film, chemicals and most importantly time, one exposure, unseen, unknown until hours or days later cost money but more importantly time. In my mind this put a high cost on pressing the shutter button. Each exposure I considered had a real cost, I took more time learning to see, more time looking through my viewfinder. Weighing my choices before committing my choice to film. Now I think we’re much more likely to shoot, maybe move shoot some more fiddle with the settings and shoot again. Seeing something on the screen we’re mostly happy with we stop looking and move on, maybe never looking a little deeper, seeing before we press the release. I guess I’m saying that the commitment in time money and effort, just to produce even a proof from film, encourages learning to look and see in a way that the ease of digital can’t. That in my mind may be the best reason to encourage new photographers to try film.

[Bob Johnston]

I believe that many degree courses in the UK make the use of film compulsory in the first year. So you are not alone Mike. I still have a darkroom which is in dissaray now but I intend to ressurect it to show my grandchildren the magic that they will probably never experience again. I will never go back to film though. Why would I want to go back to something so restrictive compared to digital capture?

[Frank]

I spend summers in dark, Warm, smelly, unhealthy darkrooms professionally. Don't miss film photography at all, I thank man's genius of developing digital! Progress!

[Antony Shepherd]

I recently picked up a Leica IIIf with 5cm f2.8 Elmar for under £500, which I guess is a huge bargain by Leica prices. Yeah, the viewfinder is minute, and there's that thing about trimming the leader and shoving the film in from the bottom, but that turned out to be way easier than I expected it would.

It's a fine piece of precision machinery and I can easily imagine just using that for a year.

I went back to film quite a while back and largely I liked the discipline of only having as many shots as I had rolls of film with me, which forced me to think about the shot more rather than just bang away which was my bad DSLR habit.
I develop my own film and I like the process of that too, lets me express my inner mad scientist - especially if I develop BW film in Caffenol!

I keep getting tempted to venture into large format, but not having a vehicle of my own means dragging around more stuff when I'd rather travel light!

[Graham Byrnes]

What's the fuss about view-finder black-out? According to my understanding of the technology, it happens *after* you choose to press the button. The information you get from a range-finder after pressing the button arrives too late to change the timing, does it not?

[You get no information from a rangefinder at the moment of exposure. But you still see the subject at the moment of exposure. Not true of an optical SLR. Plus, the shutter lag of a traditional Leica is about 15 ms, and of a mechanical SLR, between 60 and 200 ms. Sports shooters actually learn(ed) to "lead" the shutter lag when shooting with SLRs. (Shutter lag on an electronic digital camera is all over the place, because it depends on how you have the camera set and what the camera has to do first (e.g., focus), and whether you already have the shutter button half-pressed, etc., etc.) --Mike]

[Steve Jacob]

David Aiken already answered the question for me, so I have another question that's orthogonal to this.

Given that most student photographers will end up use digital anyway, what lessons do you think are most important to help them specifically master digital images?

[Charlie Didrickson]

I'm never sure about the answer to these questions, but isn't that the point?

As a good friend likes to say, "It won't hurt, might help." He often says this about bicycle helmets. Speaking of bicycles, I'll flip the question. Should new cyclists start with a penny-farthing before riding a modern bicycle? Again, I don't know but I do think experiences inform us and point us in directions.

Might help. Won't hurt.

[Hi Charlie, Well, what do cyclists actually start on? Do they go right to an ultralight racing bike with drop handlebars without ever having ridden a bike before? What about if they're amateurs who have only ever experienced ultralight racing bikes--would there be any sense in suggesting that they try a mountain bike, and a fixie, and a steel-framed cruiser with fenders, a comfy seat, and albatross bars, just to enlarge their experience of bicycling in general? ( https://www.rivbike.com/collections/framesets/products/frame-new-atlantis ) Would they scoff and scorn at anyone who suggested they try other kinds of bikes just for fun? You can tell me; inquiring minds want to know. :-) --Mike]

[Charlie Didrickson]

[Well, what do cyclists actually start on? Do they go right to an ultralight racing bike with drop handlebars without ever having ridden a bike before? What about if they're amateurs who have only ever experienced ultralight racing bikes--would there be any sense in suggesting that they try a mountain bike, a fixie, or a steel-framed cruiser with fenders, a comfy seat, and albatross bars, just to enlarge their experience of bicycling? ( https://www.rivbike.com/collections/framesets/products/frame-new-atlantis ) Would they scoff and scorn at anyone who suggested they try other kinds of bikes just for fun? You can tell me. Inquiring minds want to know. --Mike]

I think the parallels are similar and I believe helpful to try different formats in order to know what suits. Of course the "right tool for the job" applies to both as well ,so maybe we all need 5 bikes and nine cameras!

This gets hairy now because we start talking about what it is that makes someone a Photographer or Cyclist vs merely owning a bike or having a camera. Most people start out on a children's bike which does not a cyclist make) We become cyclists and photographers by choice and some of us will try the buffet and some will just go for what seems right and roll with it.

Test riding is always good IMO.

[psu]

Quote:

I guess I’m saying that the commitment in time money and effort, just to produce even a proof from film, encourages learning to look and see in a way that the ease of digital can’t.

End Quote.

I have never been sympathetic to the idea that being forced to shoot less is a great way to learn.

I say that all that does is make you learn to take fewer pictures, good or bad. There was never a time when I shot film that I would not wanted to have taken *more* chances at getting a good picture of a good situation and then gotten annoyed because there was only so much film I could carry with me.

My experience is that you learn to take good pictures by taking pictures, editing them ruthlessly, and learning what works and what doesn't. The trick is not in how much you shoot, but in how much you show to other people as examples of good work.

The hard part of the photography game is putting yourself in a place where there are good pictures to be found, seeing those good pictures for what they are and then having the technical know-how to capture them when you have the opportunity. To me everything else: obsessing about camera ergonomics, the constant fussing over material choices and post-processing "workflows" and all the rest of it is secondary. The art is in the seeing and the capturing and knowing your tools well enough to do that well. Anything that makes *that* easier to learn is good.

[AN]

I'm 37, have an MFA in Photography, and I've made most of my living from photography and related skills (printing, scanning, Photoshop, etc.) for my entire adult life.

I first got into photography in the early 2000s, specifically because of the new availability of affordable digital point and shoots. The speed and control permitted by digital cameras and Photoshop made photography seem accessible and appealing in a way that film photography wasn't. Digital felt to me immediate and tangible, which is strange to think about, since film is literally more so.

Around 2010, I thought I should probably try shooting film (due in no small part to the influence of this blog). I borrowed a beat up Leica M2 with a 40mm f/2, and bought some Tri-X. I spent a few hours shooting a roll, following my usual shooting routines and subject matter. It was terrible. It wasn't difficult (if anything, it was easier than shooting with a digital camera, since the device was so simple), but I felt extremely detached and uninvested in what I was doing. I never tried it again, and I never even developed the roll of film.

A couple years later, I tried shooting with a view camera. Much better. In contrast to shooting with the rangefinder, I felt very engaged with the process, and that ground glass view can't be beat. I shot with a view camera on and off for a few years.

I've quit film for the foreseeable future, mainly because it's quite a hassle, and I don't think the film itself ever made much difference in my enjoyment of the process, or the quality of the results. I disliked the Leica because of the rangefinder, and liked the view camera because of the ground glass. If there was a better local infrastructure to support film (e.g. a place other than Urban Outfitters to buy film, a place to develop and/or scan film), I might still use a view camera, but mostly I just wish for an iPad screen welded to the back of a mirrorless digital camera.

I think my phone would actually be a really ideal camera, if it didn't do so much other stuff. The last thing I want is a camera that rings and delivers text messages and notifications. I worry that cameras as dedicated devices may become endangered in my lifetime. If so, I could see myself building a darkroom.

[Ned Bunnell]

Thought this was apropos...

https://instagram.com/p/BkQKf08lTfe/

[David Paterson]

I really do not like this idea, and disliked it way back when you first mentioned it.

Shoot only b/w film for a year (and with a Leica yet)? I think using a Leica and a 50mm lens makes image-making far too difficult for any first-year student. It's like saying that in learning to drive a car, you should start by learning to drive a stagecoach (and the more I think about that analogy, the better it gets). I also intensely dislike the mystique which has grown up around Leica, most of which is entirely undeserved. Old HCB as a lot to answer for.

The first thing students should do is—by all possible means—start training their eye; a process which is fundamentally important and which never ends.

[Robert Roaldi]

I have nothing useful to add to the above. All I can say is the thing I miss most about using film is the film advance lever on my Pentax Spotmatic. The thing was a work of art. I like my current digicams, but I've lost that appreciation of a fine mechanical device.