Using film in a digital world…not such a strange thing.

My mother-in-law, a wonderful person, has always enjoyed taking pictures. Her first camera was a Kodak Box Camera when she was a little girl. She’ll turn 89 this October. I’ve rarely seen her without a camera since I’ve known her these past 39 years.

Today she owns two cameras, one a digital and the other a film 35mm. She’s had the film camera for many years; the digital was a recent gift. So guess which one she uses the most: Her favorite is the film camera. She’s hardly used the digital.

Most of us take the differences between digital and film workflow (meaning the procedures necessary to generate a picture for viewing) for granted. We’ve either grown up with computers or have been using them long enough that the use of computers to capture digital images, print them, mail them, etc is no big deal. But to someone in my mother-in-law’s generation, accepting that the picture you just snapped now resides on a small “chip” in the camera that you then have to somehow get into another device that can print it….well, that can be a big hurdle. Especially when they know how easy it is to snap the picture and take film to the drug store for processing and printing. Her biggest problem today is finding a place that sells film. So I recently hooked her up with my preferred film supplier, B&H Photo in NYC (www.bhphotovideo.com). Now she can just call them when she needs refills on film.

Wait. Did he say “his preferred film supplier??” Yes, I did. You see, I shoot more film than digital, even though I have a perfectly capable digital camera (a Nikon D200) and I know digital workflow inside and out. Nor am I an octogenarian like my mother-in-law. I’m a mere quintagenarian (is that what they call “50 somethings?”).

So why am I using film in this digital age?

I get that question alot from my photography friends, usually it comes with that “what a dinosaur” look to their faces. To be honest, sometimes even I wonder why I’m hanging onto this 20 Century technology, and am tempted many times by the simplicity and ease of using a fully digital workflow. Yet, I haven’t, and likely never will, give in to these temptations. Why not? Here’s my top six reasons:

1. I get higher quality images using film. With film, I get better resolution than my 10mp digital camera when I need bigger prints. Film lets me capture a much longer scale with film- I strive to capture in my images both deep shadow details and sunlit cloud details, a look that I adore in photographs. There are technical reasons why, but digital sensors aren’t as sensitive at both shadow and highlight ends of the light scale to create the same tonal range as film.

2. I never have to worry about electronic failures that cause me to lose my images forever. Erased files, hard drive crashes, card failures–not a worry to me with film. Once I get the film developed I have it forever to rescan.

3. Film is extremely flexible since it’s a Write-Once-Read-Many format. For a single negative, I can scan it into digital form an unlimited number of times. I can scan it to 10mpixels for routine web or small print presentation, then later rescan them to 35mp (35mm negatives) or 75mp (120 medium format and 4×5 large format films) in true 16bit color. Thus, I can create huge prints (40″ x 60″ or more) this way, and those prints are high quality prints comparatively free of pixelation or other “overenlargement” artifacts that we get with 35mm digital cameras. You can buy the larger format digital cameras, but the cost compares to buying a car. No thanks.

4. Shooting film slows me down when shooting and speeds me up when processing my images. When shooting, I take more time composing each shot and shoot far fewer pictures of the same scene. By slowing down when shooting, I realize a greater appreciation for the scene; I’ve taken more time to analyze what’s before me and what inspired me to stop in the first place. I enjoy shooting more because of this. When I shoot digital, I know I have space on my memory cards for over 700 pictures. So like most digital photographers, I just snap away, taking perhaps dozens of pictures of one subject. It can be argued that this is an advantage, and in some ways it is. But–and here’s where film speeds me up– when I get home my job of culling my film shots is quicker than it is with digital. After all, I have far fewer (but better) images to deal with. I throw away alot more of my digital shots. And when I throw them away, I mean I delete them from my camera and computer, never to be seen again (see #2 above).

5. I love working with film. After thousands of times doing it, I still get a thrill seeing the negatives (both B&W and color) when I take them from the wash and hang them to dry. I get another thrill when I scan (i.e., digitize) them. And I always have the thrill when printing, which is my preferred way to present my final images. Yes, developing and scanning film is more work (actually I consider it play), and it takes experience to develop a reliable workflow for developing and scanning, and a bit of cost. But to me the thrills are worth the effort of working with film. I agree such hands-on approach is not for everyone. But, you don’t have to do it this way to use film (keep reading).

Like many professional fine art photographers, I use both film and digital cameras. While I prefer film for most of my professional work, I will use my digital camera when:
– it’s the only camera I have with me (this is ALWAYS the best camera available: the one you have with you!)
– when I don’t trust myself to make the right exposure. I sometimes need immediate feedback after I shoot the frame (we call it ‘chimping’). Sometimes it’s difficult to meter sunrise/sunset conditions or when shooting into the sun, so rather than miss the shot I will shoot it with digital, making adjustments and multiple shots until I get it just right. One day I hope to learn a better way.
– related to the point just above, I use my digital camera like photographers-of-old used polaroids, to evaluate a shot before investing the time to set up the big cameras.
– when I am shooting subjects for which I don’t expect to need large, high quality prints. These include corporate work, family shots, social events, and such.
– when I want (or need) a quick product– this doesn’t happen very often and it’s usually a matter of preference rather than need. Sometimes I just want to post a pretty picture on my Facebook page to say “look what I saw today!”

A digital camera is a great invention for many of our picture-taking situations. But it’s a mere rumor that “film is dead.” In many ways, film is superior. In a few ways, digital is superior. If quality and flexibility is important to you, film is the way to go.

I use 35mm, 6×7 medium format, and 4×5 large format film cameras in my work. You can still take rolls of 35mm to your local Costco or CVS Store and pay about $1 per roll for them to develop. They will scan it  at 2400 ppi for about $3 per roll of 36.

So try this. Chances are good that you have a 35mm film camera sitting in a drawer somewhere. Dig it out and shoot a few rolls of film. When you get the prints back (or have your developer scan them to CD for you), compare the pictures with your more recent digital camera shots. I think you’ll be amazed at how much better film captures the essence of your experience. We’re so accustomed to seeing blocked out whites in our digital pictures today that I think we’ve lost appreciation for those delicate soft wispy whites and very fine tonal changes that our eyes actually see. Film is much more capable of capturing those attributes.

Let me know if you’re happy with the result. If you are, keep the film camera handy, chances are you’ll be using it more and more.

Happy shooting.

Jim

A different view of the natural world

I only recently discovered the potential of abstract photography. I knew abstract art existed, of course, but I’d never even considered it as something I wanted to spend my artistic time on.  But about a year ago, I listened to several very successful fine art photographers talk about their approaches to abstract photography, complete with examples, and I was amazed at how beautifully nature can be depicted as abstractions.

Several months passed before I actually tried abstract photography. I was shooting at Chincoteague last Spring. While I normally attach my camera to a good tripod to ensure a sharp capture, on that day the wind was blowing so hard I could hardly stand up, let alone expect a tripod to firmly anchor my camera. So I took my camera in hand and thought I’d try this ‘abstract’ stuff. My subject was to be the salt marsh grasses violently yielding to the aforementioned wind.

I remembered one of the experts describe how moving the camera while clicking the shutter is a common technique for abstract art (there are several others). So that was what I’d try on my virgin attempt. The wind had the grasses of the salt marsh bent over about 45 degrees. I carefully practiced moving the camera parallel to the grasses, then actually took a couple frames.

Digital is great because you get immediate feedback by looking at the LCD screen on the back of the camera. After a very few tries, this is what I saw on the LCD, and I very much liked it.

Salt Marsh, Chincoteague NWR

The technique itself is straightforward and very rewarding if an abstraction is what you are after. Use a slow shutter speed so that there is distinct motion during the exposure. How slow will depend on how fast you intend to move the camera. Certainly, if your shutter speed is 1/100 sec, you need to be moving the camera pretty darn fast, and hold onto it very tightly. I recommend a much slower shutter speed- 1/2 to 1 sec even. Set that first, then meter the scene to see what aperture matches that speed. Remember that small apertures are okay, e.g. f/22 or f/32. Diffraction limitations seen at those apertures are not a concern with abstractions. Then experiment. Try different shutter speeds, different directions of movement (even circular), and various magnitudes of movement. Very small movements of the camera will give different results than large movements. By the way, this technique is even adaptable to camera phones, and Tony Sweet and others have written several articles about this.

Because of the fluid conditions used in abstract photography, the images created are exceptionally unique. In fact, I find it very difficult to reproduce a frame after I’ve captured it. I produced most of the linked abstractions below within an hour of one another and within 10 steps of each other. The landscape was a very popular and well-photographed waterfall (Elakala Falls) in West Virginia. This natural landmark has been captured photographically a million times. So after I took a few traditional pictures that I suspect will look like everyone else’s, I thought abstractly!  I’m glad I did.

Abstract art has a definition, but I’ve found that it is only loosely applied. The strict definition goes something like:  “..if you can tell what the subject is, it ain’t abstract.”   Others consider even traditional black and white images to be “abstract” because B&W doesn’t represent the real scene factually (i.e., it’s missing color). Thus, it is ‘abstract.’  I don’t know where, or if, there is a line between representational and abstract art, and frankly I don’t really care. I’m sure someone will correct me if I mis-characterize my art as “abstract” one day when it’s not. I’m prepared to wait.

What are your experiences with abstract photography? I’m definitely a novice at it, but I’m very pleased with this approach to create unique images of well-photographed places. I don’t see abstract replacing my current style, but I’m not going to limit myself and my art for the sake of being traditional, either. I see abstractions complementing my traditional fine art photography.  As long as I have fun with it and as long as the images I produce are pleasing to me and my audience, I’ll keep it in my art toolbox.

Let me hear your comments!

Jim