
The photographers who refuse to abandon traditional film cameras - schrofer
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32337778
======
StavrosK
Look, if you want to shoot film, shoot film. If you like the look overexposed
Polaroids have, shoot overexposed Polaroids, or shoot with your lens not
attached to your camera body, or whatever floats your boat, artistically. Just
don't argue that other people are somehow not "real" photographers just
because they don't like what you like, and don't use the "it's good because
it's what was on the market the specific decade of my twenties" argument.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
If you think that is pathetic, you should see how much time photographers
spend arguing about who is a real photographer because of the size of the
digital sensor.

It all boils down to about one or two stops, but by how people argue about it
you'd think one was shooting with a Fisher Price Barbie camera and the other a
Large format Hasselblad.

Honestly photography is all about: Skill (practice), luck, and branding in
that order. You can improve your "luck" by being at interesting locations or
events for your style, but ultimately sometimes you get the shot and sometimes
you don't.

~~~
milsorgen
It's not worth arguing about but I have three APS-C sensor cameras and I would
love to have a stop or two of performance. Being able to shoot on the evening
streets at 1/60th vs 1/15th of a second? Yes please! I would say for most
people, yeah it doesn't matter. But for more than a few that performance
increase is very, very noticeable.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
That's fine, nobody is saying there isn't a one or two stop difference.

I just said people spend an insane amount of time arguing who is a "real"
photographer because of that difference. Like "you cannot possibly shoot
wedding on APS-C!!!" until it became the most popular format for weddings, and
now it is "you cannot possibly shoot wedding with m43!!!"

If you look at digital sensors in a historical perspective, an APS-C camera
sold today is better than a full frame camera sold in 2009. Let that sink in.
A m43 sensor sold today is better than APS-C sensors sold even in 2011 (by
Canon).

So if people aren't "real" photographers today because they have a smaller
sensor, then by logical extension everyone who shot digital in 2004-2010 isn't
a real photographer either.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
It's possible that the "you can't shoot weddings on an APS-C" argument may be
a simplified version of "none of the APS-C cameras currently available have
the features a wedding photographers need". An example of such a feature is
redundant memory cards. Then as more professional APS-C cameras were
introduced the argument became invalid.

And how do you define "better sensor"? I can always find a case where a "crap
sensor" beats a "good sensor". As an example, if you're shooting a closeup of
a helicopter in flight, the sensor in a $150 point-and-shoot will outperform a
$5000+ Canon 1Dx, just because of the shutter design. And the shutter is an
integral part of the sensor for CCD chips.

------
aaronbrethorst
I shoot film, mostly black and white, on a regular basis[1]. I got into it a
year ago January after shooting digitally[2] for the last several years before
that. There is a lot to be said for working in the medium and printing
optically in a wet darkroom. It's made me a much more patient, slower
photographer. It's made me think more about my composition. And, it's also
given me a much better sense of camaraderie than I get with a digital camera
(I work in a public darkroom, and I've become good friends with a number of
other regulars).

If this sounds interesting to you, I highly recommend picking up a film camera
and giving it a shot. I put together a blog post a few months back describing
a full film kit you can put together for under $200, complete with film
developing: [http://www.ishootfilm.org/blog/2014/10/18/10-the-best-
film-c...](http://www.ishootfilm.org/blog/2014/10/18/10-the-best-film-camera-
kit-you-can-buy-for-under-200)

And, if you are interested in learning more about developing your own film and
making your own prints, I have a list of darkrooms (and photo labs) here:
[http://www.ishootfilm.org/businesses](http://www.ishootfilm.org/businesses)

[1] Like, 'every day' regular.

[2] I still do. I took a couple hundred photos at a friend's birthday party
last night with my digital Fuji X100S.

------
borgia
Some would call this hipster pretentiousness. I wouldn't though. I think
overall we're seeing a growing trend, or growing condition I believe would be
more apt, where people are searching for substance at a time where the
digital/modern life has removed or cheapened it.

It isn't confined to products either.

~~~
StavrosK
> I think overall we're seeing a growing trend, or growing condition I believe
> would be more apt, where people are searching for substance at a time where
> the digital/modern life has removed or cheapened it.

Ah, the old appeal to tradition.

~~~
unfamiliar
That wasn't an appeal to tradition, I don't know where you got that.

And besides, it is more than that. We are human beings, our brains are
designed to interact with physical objects, and when you move all of the
physical objects like CDs, photos, DVDs, etc into an existence of pure
information, what you end up missing is that satisfaction of holding a
physical object in your hand and experiencing it with all your senses, like we
did with jewels or tools centuries ago.

~~~
StavrosK
Why has digital life removed substance? Today I can talk with my friends, who
are scattered all around the globe, all day, every day, in real time. I get
lessons from experts on things that interest me, for free, whenever I want
them, without having to lift a finger. I can call my friends at a moment's
notice and we get together and do a whole host of things that would be pretty
much impossible twenty years ago.

How did digital life cheapen substance? Because I can no longer get on stage
and touch the actors in movies? When it comes to photographs, specifically,
the difference between the phone screen and a piece of paper is a hell of a
lot less than the actual thing in the photograph and the photograph itself. If
anything, your argument is against photography as a whole.

~~~
unfamiliar
I didn't mention the word substance once so I don't know what you're on about.

~~~
StavrosK
The GP (the person I was replying to) did. It's right there in the quote.

------
decasteve
Here's another niche of photographer: those of use who capture on the digital
medium and process on a computer, but refuse to display our photographs online
to be seen on a screen.

My display medium is print even though my capture is digital. I print almost
exclusively on large format paper. The output medium is what I want to control
in my photographic process.

~~~
sigmar
I can appreciate this position since the digital screen people view photos on
can't be controlled by the content creator and screens vary a ton (in
resolution, contrast, color).

------
nightski
Isn't it ironic that we are looking at these "real photos" on the internet
using a computer monitor.

Sharing your work and discussing it seems far more important than what medium
it is created on...

~~~
youbeyou
No, its not. It's a matter of perspective.

------
Quizz
Just like vinyl LPs have their fans, this is just another retro lifestyle
choice

~~~
Nav_Panel
Just like and even moreso than vinyl, there are sound, non-"hipster" reasons
one might choose to shoot film.

The major one that keeps many artists coming back is medium/large format. It's
much much cheaper to get an extremely high resolution photograph on film.
Medium format is something like 100 megapixels, and it costs about a dollar
per shot after initial expenses. The higher resolution might not matter on
monitors, but it makes a huge difference in size limitations and sharpness
when printed, and prints are generally the goal for artists.

True large format like 4x5 costs something like $10 a shot depending what film
you use (I've heard it can cost a lot less if you shoot cheapo medical b&w),
but has insane resolution, measured in gigapixels. You can print it wall-
sized, no problem. On top of that, you can only perform the full range of
movements such as tilt shift and correcting for some types of perspective
distortion on a large format field camera.

This stuff does not matter for photojournalist or weddings or sports, but many
professional artists still choose film. They never really stopped. This is in
contrast to DJs, the largest supporters of vinyl through the 90s and 00s, who
seem to have mostly stopped spinning vinyl unless they're scratching.

As a hobbyist, I appreciate that film makes me think more about each shot. I
hate the immediate feedback of digital. I love film's tactile nature. I love
turning off the screen and hitting the darkroom. But for me, I agree it's
definitely a lifestyle choice.

~~~
wuliwong
You are comparing vinyl to film but in the way you are doing it you are
implicitly comparing the experience of the consumer of the audio with the
producer of the image.

It is interesting though, that the "analog vs. digital" takes place both in
photography and music in both the production and consumption stages. You can
record analog or digital and listen to analog or digital sources of the
recording. Likewise with photography, you can use a digital or film camera and
then you can view the image on a print from a darkroom or on your computer
monitor.

It seemed as though you were using the term "hipster" to imply vinyl was more
about style and trend. If that is the case, I wouldn't characterize the sonic
differences between analog and digital recordings as simply "hipster"
differences. There is a quantifiable difference between an analog and digital
wave. Not saying one is better than the other but they are different.

Your argument that the differences with film vs. digital seemed to boil down
to the economics of the two mediums not any aesthetic difference. That is
interesting because off the top of my head I don't think there is any scenario
in music recording where it becomes cheaper to go analog. I believe, in
general, analog recording is more expensive.

~~~
Nav_Panel
> You are comparing vinyl to film but in the way you are doing it you are
> implicitly comparing the experience of the consumer of the audio with the
> producer of the image.

> Your argument that the differences with film vs. digital seemed to boil down
> to the economics of the two mediums not any aesthetic difference. That is
> interesting because off the top of my head I don't think there is any
> scenario in music recording where it becomes cheaper to go analog. I
> believe, in general, analog recording is more expensive.

You are correct, my apologies. From the producer standpoint, analog recording
techniques offer few benefits compared to digital.

I didn't argue from an aesthetic viewpoint because I don't think the aesthetic
viewpoint is worth arguing about, in that it's generally a non-productive
conversation that ends up in "well I prefer x because it feels better than y".
Although, I will argue one particular point: I find that vinyl creates an
"equalizing" factor when listening to older music alongside newer music,
whereas the increased clarity and lower noise floor of digital makes
50s/60s/earlier recordings sound considerably worse than contemporary
recordings. A result of this is that when listening on vinyl, I am better able
to look past poor recording quality and make decisions based on artistic
quality. This, however, is merely a personal preference.

> It seemed as though you were using the term "hipster" to imply vinyl was
> more about style and trend. If that is the case, I wouldn't characterize the
> sonic differences between analog and digital recordings as simply "hipster"
> differences. There is a quantifiable difference between an analog and
> digital wave. Not saying one is better than the other but they are
> different.

I will direct you to this very enlightening page:
[http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29](http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29)
\-- in my view, the only quantifiable differences in audio between vinyl and
digital is that vinyl has a worse noise floor, a generally smaller "usable"
frequency spectrum (the highs deteriorate pretty quickly), and includes
surface noise, hum, rumble, etc.

I think the revival is hipster. I collect vinyl because it's often the only
place to find certain genres of music (such as western swing and classic
honky-tonk country), but I am generally hesitant to buy a pressing of a
contemporary recording. I will do it, though, because I like having the
physical product, but that _is_ a stylistic decision more than one based on
necessity/actual audio differences.

------
prayerslayer
The major reason for me to occasionally shoot film is that I find the haptic
and usability of the cameras way better than current digital models. Depends
on how much you're comfortable to spend though.

------
bitL
No wonder. Recently I bought Nikon D750, "camera of the year 2014", and barely
see any difference to D7000 (except for high ISO where D750 is stunning), the
skin is still as mushy and features flat as always. Then I bought Sigma SD1
Merrill, with a 3-layer Foveon sensor that is probably the closest to a film-
equivalent digital camera and the studio portrait photos are simply
breathtaking despite camera being a slow clunker with horrible high ISO. I
really can't go back to D750 now, all pictures feel flat, details hidden,
unnatural noise at ISO 100 etc.

It might be that those that like to stay with film don't like the effect of
most digital sensors. If you search on photography forums, plenty of people
are displeased by digital look, and if you have a perfect color vision (like I
do), it sometimes hurts... There is of course a lot of nostalgia and desire to
be different while sticking to film. Technically in most measurable
characteristics digital sensors vastly outperform film, yet there are some
subtle characteristics we perceive they have hard time to replicate (like
microcontrast).

Of course, some digital cameras bring their own "artistic license" to the mix,
like Canon is known for pleasant color palette and being very flattering to a
model look, and many people then prefer such a look to anything shot on film
which looks more realistic.

------
panamafrank
You get to stand in a darkroom for hours, intensely focused on one thing
without any interruptions. There's is a huge amount of highly detailed
knowledge needed get even passable results. It's a slow ritualistic process
prone to being derailed by even the slightest mistake.

All these things when earned over years give you a deep respect for the
medium.

------
vkjv
Very similar to guitarists who refuse to give up tube amplifiers. I'm one of
them.

~~~
SwellJoe
I am, as well, but not because of the tubes themselves, anymore. The reason I
haven't given up my tube amps is because the quality of the non-tube amps
generally sucks. The reason seems to be that DSP-equipped amps with tube
simulation are trying to address _two_ problems instead of just one. One of
the problems they are trying to address is the high cost of tube amps. The
other is simulating a tube sound without tubes. I believe the first part of
the equation is where things are going wrong.

A cheap amp and speaker with a DSP simulated tube sound being run through it
will still sound like a cheap amp and speaker. There may be high end
manufacturers making high quality guitar amps with emulation, but I'm unaware
of them. They haven't been present in the music store on any occasion I've
gone in to select a new amp.

The brands I'm aware of doing "tube emulation" in amps are brands I would
never buy, at any cost. Behringer, Line 6 (and this is considered one of the
good ones, honestly, and they do sound better than most, but are still cheaply
constructed), Tech21 (again, decent, but not high end). All pretty shitty amps
that happen to have a modeling DSP stuck in front.

I just did some googling, and it seems Roland is out front on making a
reasonably high quality modeling combo amp (GA112). I'd be willing to bet that
sounds as good as a real tube amp in the same price range, because the old
JC120 combo was a _great_ solid state combo amp...Roland knows how to make a
high quality solid state amp, and they were on the front line of amp modeling.
Of course, it also costs as much as a real mid-range tube amp, at ~$500.

I suspect there's a lot of cargo culting going on, as well. Guitarist knows
their favorite recordings were made with tube amps, so they want a tube amp.
So, any manufacturer wanting to make amps that are sought after, will make
them tube amps, despite the many negatives to tube amps (requirement to bias
them, requirement to periodically replace tubes, temperature sensitivity,
etc.).

In short: We're probably buying into a superstitious belief that tube amps
sound better than a modeling amp of similar quality. The only problem is we
can't readily find many modeling amps of similar quality because they're
targeted toward a price-conscious market and so they've cut corners everywhere
and not just on the lack of tube preamp and amp circuits.

------
cube00
A similar story about Polaroid film is covered in the doco "Time Zero"
[http://timezeromovie.com/](http://timezeromovie.com/)

------
arxpoetica
The article mentions Film's Not Dead, but fails to mention
[http://filmisnotdead.com/](http://filmisnotdead.com/)

------
pjmlp
There are also photographers that refuse to abandon even older style cameras,
like Hiroshi Sugimoto, which uses 8x10 large-format camera for many of his
works.

------
gaius
I still use B&W film. It's just a different art form. People didn't stop
painting when photography came along, people didn't throw away their
instruments and replace them with synths, people won't stop sculpting and buy
3D printers instead. I don't care that it's not practical - I'm not doing
photography for a living.

~~~
unfamiliar
I'm afraid I disagree. It's not a different art form, it is just an evolution
of it. There is literally nothing that film cameras can do that digital
camera's can't do, and in most cases do better. Comparing the transition to
painting versus photography is just ridiculous - you might as well compare
painting to sculpture, because they are _genuinely_ different art forms. 3D
printing and sculpting are completely different processes to produce a 3D
shape - film and digital photography are two almost identical processes to
produce the same end result. I don't see a single argument in favour of film
besides nostalgia. A much more accurate comparison would be someone who
insists on heating pots over a wood fire every night, rather than using a gas
flame.

~~~
mbrock
Do you think this argument is going to convince someone who enjoys shooting
with film? I'm sure it won't, and that's interesting. The question comes up
all over in art making, and it's never resolved through these kinds of
arguments.

I don't think most people who enjoy shooting on film put it forward as _better
than_ digital. That's why you don't hear "a single argument in favour." It's
not a question of better or worse.

As for _your_ argument, "digital cameras can do everything film cameras do" is
first of all wrong, and second of all irrelevant even if true.

Why wrong? Well, consider chemical crossprocessing, or the effects of expired
film, or just the different tones of different types of stock. You might
either be uninterested in such things, or think that these effects can be
easily reproduced with postprocessing, but even in the latter case it's
_different_ , different skills are required, different tools, different
mindsets.

Why irrelevant? Because at least some of the perceived value of film comes
_from the limitations themselves_. That's something you can never get at
through making the digital tools more advanced—in fact, it just gets worse.
For someone who shoots on B&W film, the lack of color can be a feature. Even
the small capacity of a film roll can be a boon; for example, it might give me
a mindset of scarcity and significance.

There's a restaurant in Stockholm that only uses wood fire. I won't knock it
until I've tasted it. And the presence of fire is something in itself, aside
from culinary blind tests.

~~~
unfamiliar
>Do you think this argument is going to convince someone who enjoys shooting
with film?

No, I don't think it will convince them to shoot digital, which is a lost
cause. I was more specifically arguing about the claim that it is a different
art form, which I think is nonsense and pretentious

>Because at least some of the perceived value of film comes from the
limitations themselves.

I agree with this and everything else you wrote. But my response to this is to
see the advantage in scarcity of shots, and the limiting nature of black and
white, and apply those restrictions shooting in digital.

~~~
gaius
_I think is nonsense and pretentious_

If your experience of film photography is sending a roll off and getting an
envelope of prints back, then maybe, but if you are developing yourself, the
development process involves all sorts of trade-offs of time, temperature, and
chemistry, then wet-printing is more of the same, along with literal dodging
and burning (do you ever wonder why the Photoshop tools are called that?). It
really has very, very little in common with a digital workflow. So your point
is one from ignorance.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>It's not a different art form, it is just an evolution of it. (user
Unfamiliar, above) //

I think he's kinda right there when he goes on to note that the resulting
final image from a digital process can be visually adapted to emulate what can
be achieved with film.

But I also think you're right to note that the _craft_ of chemical development
is markedly different to digital photo processing (photoshopping or what-have-
you) [with or without printing].

It makes me consider typewriters vs. wordprocessors; or a potters hands vs. a
jigger [or jolley].

To my mind the road travelled to reach a final artistic presentation can be
important even if the evidence of it is not present in the form or image
itself.

------
imaginenore
I'm surprised there are no digital large format cameras or backs. I'm also
surprised the medium format backs are so expensive. Isn't making larger photo
sensors supposed to be easier?

Btw, if you had never seen photos made on a large format camera, find a
gallery near you, and go see some prints. I'm yet to see a digital equivalent
of that.

~~~
justincormack
No, they are chips, and making large defect free chips is hard. Chips are best
small.

You can get large format scanner backs, but they take time to scan.

Sheet film is a huge cheap disposable sensor, just add a scanner and you are
done if you want digital.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
> No, they are chips, and making large defect free chips is hard. Chips are
> best small.

That's true. But you can sometimes assembly lots of small chips into one
larger sensor and solve a lot of the issues doing that causes in software
after the fact.

I suspect it doesn't exist because the market is tiny and the R&D too
expensive, rather than it being an inherent problem with the tech' itself.

I just don't think enough people, even pros, would spend $20K+ on one of these
to justify the engineering, software, and marketing that went into it (and the
level or risk).

> You can get large format scanner backs, but they take time to scan.

So recreating the original experience of large format then? :)

~~~
wlievens
The company I work for designs and sells image sensors. Our largest (custom)
sensor is about the size of a phablet phone - not quite large format but it's
close.

------
ColinWright
Here is one case where I think the article's original title would be far
better than the one chosen by the submitter.

Why have you changed it? In what way do you think this title is more
informative?

~~~
borgia
Interestingly the title "Digital Refuseniks" actually appears as the title for
the article if you check out the "Features and Analysis" list on the right
hand side of the article's page.

Screenshot: [http://i.imgur.com/Fv3cGSw.png](http://i.imgur.com/Fv3cGSw.png)

~~~
ColinWright
Bizarre - thank you for highlighting this.

It's still less informative.

