Film Food for cameras, food for thought?

OK, I'll ask. What is "slow food"?

For example, snails :

recette-escargots.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


It's very slow.
 
It's disappointing to read this.

Why? What's wrong with nostalgia? I'm quite nostalgic about my Ricoh GR (original) and will pull it out occasionally and have a lot of fun with it. Nostalgia keeps me connected emotionally to a past that I cherished. I see nothing wrong with that. It's all about rekindling a pleasure I felt once and want to feel again. I'm a bit confused as to why you're disappointed.
 
Why? What's wrong with nostalgia? I'm quite nostalgic about my Ricoh GR (original) and will pull it out occasionally and have a lot of fun with it. Nostalgia keeps me connected emotionally to a past that I cherished. I see nothing wrong with that. It's all about rekindling a pleasure I felt once and want to feel again. I'm a bit confused as to why you're disappointed.

I wouldn't dare to try to speak for anyone, but the way I read it was that your statement implied that nostalgia was the ONLY reason why someone would shoot film instead of digital. I think Paul shoots film for reasons that have NOTHING to do with nostalgia.

There are two different ways of looking at nostalgia. One is with love and affection and respect for those things of a bygone era. The other is as an emotional security blanket to cling to because the modern things are (fill in the blank).

As an example (though maybe slightly different), I prefer to listen to music on LP over CDs or MP3 files. But not because it is some old-timey way to playback music. I don't play records for nostalgia's sake and I would express the same disappointment Paul did if someone suggested that the only plausible reason people used turntables was because of nostalgia.
 
Ah ok. That makes sense now. The only issue I had with the article is this whole "considered shooting with film" bit. Which I don't agree with. I think nostalgia is a great reason to do something. It's a bit like love isn't it?
 
I did the back to film thing about 3 years ago and for about 2 years shot mostly film.

I was seduced by 6x6 and 6x9 cameras and owned a SWC, 500CM, GSW690III and GF670W. All beautiful cameras.

More importantly I also produced some fantastic results - especially with the SWC and Fuji cameras. You can see the results in my Flickr stream and I have one book almost finished which is 90% film frames which have reproduced beautifully.

One thing you notice immediately with film is that you capture the sky as it was meant to be. I'd always been very disappointed with my M8 blowing highlights. So, I figured after I returned to film, that was it.

I agree with the point made in the article that film slows you down and makes you think. It has definitely influenced me now I have gone back to shooting digital. I tend to wait for the shot and often take no shot at all rather than take a shot and hope that in pp it will suddenly turn into something wonderful.

Another point made to me by a friend is that as soon as you put any camera on a tripod it will make you think a lot more about the shot. I tend to shoot my DP2M and DP3M on a tripod and I have to admit that it was the results from the DP2M that made me think once and for all, why on earth am I lugging around this heavy camera gear when I can get a single frame with digital-MF like IQ?

In the end it came down to IQ. For home processing, getting a decent scan off a 6x6 or greater negative is proving hard to do since most of the scanner manufacturers have ceased production. I just did not feel comfortable investing a lot of money in a discontinued scanner, like the Nikon 9000 with the fear that ultimately it would be unfixable if it broke down. I'd reached the boundary of what I could do with the equipment I had and decided that with the processing chain for colour film becoming more difficult (even in London there were only two local shops near me and one of those closed down) it was time to go back to digital.

Do I regret it? Yes and no. I loved using my Hasselblad - my Sony A7 doesn't give me the same pleasure even if it gives me better results. Actually, the little Ricoh GR is one of the few digital cameras that does feel enjoyable to use - don't ask me why but it does.

I think everyone should go through the film-thing and I do not rule out being seduced again in the future but for now I am back in the digital camp.

LouisB
 
As been said by others, one does not need to shoot film to slow down, honestly I do not even think that slowing down makes one a better photographer. It all depends on what you shoot. Paying attention to what is in the viewfinder or for that matter what is around you in the world at large is the important thing. Great images are a product of a number of parts, light, composition, subject and that decisive moment. Learning the ability to capture what you see, takes shooting and practice, at whatever speed.

I also think there is a big difference between slow food and slow photography, slow food is a style of cooking that brings out favors that are different from "fast" cooking methods, it just not about slowing down to figure out how to approach cooking a leg of lamb. there is no added benefit to slowing down your photo taking unless the speed gets in the way of capturing the image. Example camera shake
 
....I prefer to listen to music on LP over CDs or MP3 files. But not because it is some old-timey way to playback music. I don't play records for nostalgia's sake and I would express the same disappointment Paul did if someone suggested that the only plausible reason people used turntables was because of nostalgia.

I've read about vinyl records for a long time, but saw something the other day that really got my attention. The writer said that the phono player is the only device that generates its own current by physically playing the media, while other methods require electronics to generate their initial current. Suddenly it made sense - why it sounds different. I'd guess photography has an analogy in the physical materials on the film. There are "film looks" in digital, but they wouldn't be quite the same as film.
 
How? I am no physicist but the first law of thermodynamics springs to mind...

Not an expert on my side either. But from an audio engineering standpoint (according to the Stereophile article) the needle in the spinning groove generates a current by its physical activity in that groove, while a CD player or digital player DAC uses electronic conversion only.
 
As been said by others, one does not need to shoot film to slow down, honestly I do not even think that slowing down makes one a better photographer. It all depends on what you shoot. Paying attention to what is in the viewfinder or for that matter what is around you in the world at large is the important thing. Great images are a product of a number of parts, light, composition, subject and that decisive moment. Learning the ability to capture what you see, takes shooting and practice, at whatever speed.

I also think there is a big difference between slow food and slow photography, slow food is a style of cooking that brings out favors that are different from "fast" cooking methods, it just not about slowing down to figure out how to approach cooking a leg of lamb. there is no added benefit to slowing down your photo taking unless the speed gets in the way of capturing the image. Example camera shake

Bob, you are right - one does not need to shoot film to slow down. But let's explore the other point you make. Does slowing down per se make one a better photographer? As you rightly say, it depends. Slow does not equal good, but it is a contributory element in a wider consideration. To quote you again "Great images are a product of a number of parts, light, composition, subject, and that decisive moment." - how true. But the speed with which you can juggle those elements and juggle them to good effect is a function of practice and of your level of expertise. Consider starting out learning a musical instrument - let's say guitar. Your initial movements are clumsy, you jangle the strings, your strumming and fingerpicking is inconsistent, you are slow. With practice you speed up, become more adroit, and more confident. The noise becomes music. Then one day you change, let's say from electric to acoustic guitar. You are in unfamiliar territory again. You slow down, and become more aware of your movements, of how you put everything together to play a tune. It is a new challenge to you, one which makes you think, takes you back to basics.

Where I am going with this is that handling a camera, like playing a musical instrument is in equal parts an intellectual and a physical exercise. Physical memory plays a big part. When you are "in the zone", in a flow state, shooting smoothly, time itself seems to slow down, because you are working effectively, with all aspects in harmony. You do more - process more information and take more photos - in less time. Speed - or slowness - in itself is not a desirable factor, but the ability to do more in less time, to be more accurate more of the time, to achieve more with less resources - cannot be a bad thing.

Sorry, I think I have gone a bit Zen...
 
Bob, you are right - one does not need to shoot film to slow down. But let's explore the other point you make. Does slowing down per se make one a better photographer? As you rightly say, it depends. Slow does not equal good, but it is a contributory element in a wider consideration. To quote you again "Great images are a product of a number of parts, light, composition, subject, and that decisive moment." - how true. But the speed with which you can juggle those elements and juggle them to good effect is a function of practice and of your level of expertise. Consider starting out learning a musical instrument - let's say guitar. Your initial movements are clumsy, you jangle the strings, your strumming and fingerpicking is inconsistent, you are slow. With practice you speed up, become more adroit, and more confident. The noise becomes music. Then one day you change, let's say from electric to acoustic guitar. You are in unfamiliar territory again. You slow down, and become more aware of your movements, of how you put everything together to play a tune. It is a new challenge to you, one which makes you think, takes you back to basics.

Where I am going with this is that handling a camera, like playing a musical instrument is in equal parts an intellectual and a physical exercise. Physical memory plays a big part. When you are "in the zone", in a flow state, shooting smoothly, time itself seems to slow down, because you are working effectively, with all aspects in harmony. You do more - process more information and take more photos - in less time. Speed - or slowness - in itself is not a desirable factor, but the ability to do more in less time, to be more accurate more of the time, to achieve more with less resources - cannot be a bad thing.

Sorry, I think I have gone a bit Zen...
I completely agree, when one is learning it is easier to go slowly to a point, but once you reach a certain confidence, speed alone should not be the main factor in one's work. I know there are times when I just shoot too fast because of time pressures, but at the same time I have no patience to just sit and contemplate my images. Many years ago while touring the southwest, I stopped at the Spider Rock Overlook in Canyon de Chelly National Monument. After firing off back then maybe 100 frames of Kodachrome, I will never forget the look on the face of the other photographer there shooting with a Hasselblad who had shot 2 frames in the same amount of time. He was shocked and I am sure thought I did not appreciate the “Zen” of that scene, but I on the other hand knew I had something like 25 incredible images. Too each his own, there is not absolute right or wrong.

On the audio conversation, one needs to learn too listen in order to appreciate the different musical listening formats
 
Back
Top