I completely disagree. Film, digital, whatever. They’re just different methods of recording one’s esthetic interpretation of what the photographers’ minds-eye sees.
Thank you for your honesty Chris.
Hey Peter: If I can give you another very biased opinion… since the demise of your M9 and frustrations with Leica over CMOS, for all of the before-mentioned reasons, I think your site is denigrating into a concern more about the technology and less about the aesthetic that makes you as an artist unique. No pun intended, but I think you’re loosing your focus on why you created this site in the first place.
To a large extent, you are correct.
But, I’m undergoing a transformation, and that’s always a messy business.
However, I’ve been very happy with my yield of “favourite” images thus far this year.
I too disagree. Photography is about the content, not format. Taking mundane pictures of your children on film or digital doesn’t alter the fact they’re mundane (the photographs, not your children). Who cares about the “quality” of film or medium format when it’s wasted on hobbiest equipment lovers like yourself and your sycophants.
Bill…if you can’t deliver your point of view with “constructive” criticism or a forma suitable don’t deliver it at all. At least not on Peter’s site. There are loads of other sites for these types of comments you can visit.
By the way…..lets have a look at your photography Bill :-). I suspect it will be “mundane” ……!
“Bill S” was previously banned from the site (he used a different name back then).
And Andrew, I too suspect that he won’t be sharing any of his images.
Peter, I’m not at all sure that I agree with you, but it is interesting that David Bailey said during an interview about his latest exhibition in London, that he feels that real photography is done with film. He says or at least implies very strongly that he does not use a digital camera. He is a self confessed camera nut, he loves cameras and in particular film cameras.
Using the Monochrom and with careful post processing I can get images that are quite filmic in nature.
If I remember correctly DB uses M43 cameras for his digital work. Hates all digital Leica rangefinders…
Not sure about Bailey & m43 cameras but I do know he still shoots a lot of film, I’ve seen him walking around central London with a Leica M7 around his neck and he often pops into the Aperture Camera Cafe. Also uses a Mamiya 7 too.
He has a Voigtlander Bessa and a Panasonic M43 camera (with the 20mm Panny F1.7) in this photo: http://pleasurephoto.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/david-bailey-color.jpg
In fairness, there’s a lot to like about M43s. No, image quality isn’t as good – but sometimes the shot is more important than the quality IYSWIM
Hi John,
I can honestly say that the Monochrom is in a class of its own when it comes to B&W photography. But I can equally honestly say that it doesn’t render like film.
It depends on how you define the word photography, if it’s just image making no it won’t digital is it I am afraid. If film goes then I think the art of photography (there’s a difference) will die, and that’s where I think you sit Peter your encapsulated in the art of photography.
Indeed Pi, I was referring to the “art”.
But more than this, there’s a candy-coated quality to digital images (including my own) that is off-putting. Maybe it’s a Bayer sensor thing, because the rendering of the Foveon chip appeals to me (and the Monochrom comes close too).
Will I use a digital camera again in the future? Of course. But when I periodically review images I’ve taken, it’s the film ones that tug at my heartstrings the most.
I don’t think it’s only about the content or end-result. For a lot of us, photography is a family endeavor aimed more towards recording moments in our own lives. Not sure why so many “pros” seem to think everyone with an interest in photography should share their bottom-line/end-result mentality (personally would not want to make my living photographing people/places/things that were not important to me). I recently went away for a family weekend and left the laptop and digi-cam at home. Just one film camera. The sense of “being there” was tangible and even a little nostalgic. We’re so used to fiddling with these camera/computers, and being distracted by them, that photography as we knew it is dying. If film goes, we’d definitely lose some of what made photography special. Most won’t notice.
I agree 100% MJ.
As for the “pro” mentality, I previously wrote this:
I personally think it’s more to do with how technology is moving vs. moving away from film. For instance the CCD era of sensors were the first iteration and then CMOS bringing new capabilities beyond that. We are getting further and further away from the origins of photography in terms of “the basics” including ergonomically and the rendering of sensors (film vs. digital).
So based on that, it’s an aspect of current photography tools I don’t like(their progress) and therefore I naturally want to stay closer to the basics. That’s the way I see/view or feel about your comment in the title. I’m having a year with film now, though it’s more to enjoy it while it’s about and see if I learn a few things, slow down, etc. Would it worry me to go back to digital, not at all. However it’s not the latest digital technology which I like…..I have a curiosity though also personally find it a bit boring.
I bet that years from now Andrew, when you review your images, you’ll be most proud of the ones you created with film. Not just because they exacted more effort, but because they will more successfully conjure up the “ghosts of the past”.
I always wonder why someone would spend time looking at material they had zero interest in or rapport with not to mention undertake to insult the source of that material and, as well, in one fell swoop, everyone whose tastes and interests are contrary enough to his as to actually find, not just enjoyment, but inspiration and artistic reward in the same material (which, I suppose, would include the gallery owner who has staked a portion of his enterprise’s reputation on the work of that source). Anyway. Not worth further worries about such peculiarities.
As to this cleverly stated piece of thought provocation from our host. Photography is an amalgam of two greek roots: photo = light and graphia = to write. So writing with light. The dictionary defines it as the process of producing an image on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light. You have to work a bit to make digital imaging fit either definition, since other processes so intervene as to eliminate any direct writing with light.
Second, Marshall McLuhan’s famous remark about medium and message has been oft repeated but sometimes not very accurately. The statement suggests only that the medium operates in a symbiotic way with the message so as to significantly affect how the message is perceived.
I doubt Peter suggests that imaging dies with film, but rather by definition it’ll be something else and the loss of that medium will certainly greatly affect how the image content is perceived. What merit whatever processes we’re working toward will have, what attributes it’ll draw forward, they’ll be different. Perhaps in time in a very satisfying way, or after a while, like turntables, a certain segment will make a convincing enough argument for it’s analogue goodness as to allow film to not only perpetuate, but to precipitate new enterprises specializing in supporting ancillary equipment and services enthusiastically embraced by a whole new wave of followers.
Film is dead… long live film. PS Before I get too carried away, let me reiterate my oft repeated confession here and elsewhere, that I never use the stuff myself, I’m just to dang lazy…
greg g49 wrote:
…the loss of that medium will certainly greatly affect how the image content is perceived.
That will certainly be the case for me. Thank you for the very thoughtful post Greg.
—Peter.
One might also posit that this has already occurred.
Perhaps.
Hello Peter,
It is an interesting comment. At first, I find that it will stir up argument. But I appreciate where you are coming from. It inspires thoughts in me though. To me, photographic tools nowadays are proliferating into many formats due to advances in digital technology. Anybody can take images and sometimes, one can find great images from a smartphone taken by someone not even understanding the holy grail of photographic theory. With todays cameras & sensors, one can find subtle differences in image quality amongst them. Tools aside, the rest will depend on the photographer themselves. Then, my take is that photography is not just the medium (film or sensors) & tools; and it is really the art & philosophy behind it that gives meaning & soul. The passion is most important (as an art, hobby, profession etc) and each of us is different & be inspired by different tool, medium & techniques, at different point in time. Sometimes, it is like fashion trend. There is no one particular fashion that can be forever. People get bored & move on.
I can see that these days you are reverting to film a lot. That also inspires me to try film for a moment however, I do not come around to that yet as it will take me a lot of new passion, commitment & time which I do not have at the moment. However, it is good to look at your transitions.
Happy shooting & appreciate your sharing.
Michael Sin.
Honestly Michael, I wasn’t intentionally trying to be provocative. It was a summary statement of my current thinking.
The discussion that has ensued has been very stimulating to me. Thank you for adding to it in a constructive way.
As a true art form, I think you are probably right Peter. I have loved photography since my mid teens. In those days you would see the subject, develop the film and then go to the darkroom and print. I remember massaging the paper in the developer to heat up areas that needed more development to make the best print possible. It was WONDERFUL. That was four decades ago. I now shoot a digital camera and enjoy it…but it doesn’t FEEL the same.
i would have to disagree. photography will keep going strong. as much as i like film i don’t think i essential for good photography.
Marc
I agree with your sentiment Peter.
Certainly Photography would loose its soul if film ever did die.
But I don’t think it will.
I hope you are right Antonio.
Being from the pre digital era. I agree with the statement. For me all photography leans/connects on my experiences of photographing with film. Difficult to explain but seeing an image and that feeling of an analog image makes my ‘heartstrings’ resonate. Sometimes a digital image will do so too. Most of the time that will be a digital image that has/simulates a filmic look.
I ‘feel’ the analog camera’s, I ‘feel’ loading the camera with film, I ‘feel’ the processing of the rolls and most of all i ‘feel’ the results. I enjoy and am much more aware of the process. It’s more deliberate. Much more than using a digital tool to produce images. Consequently there is more of me in the image, if that makes sense.
I also take digital pictures but for me something fundamental will be really lost when shooting on film will not be possible anymore.
Now if this will make any sense for the generation that never saw a roll of Film, Vinyl, Music Cassette or even CD.. But for me analog photography is here to stay.
At 60 years and 6 mo. young 😉 I have a stack of 33 rpm records (Beatles, The Who, et.al.) sitting in the basement of my home, that I feel some day might be worth something. That said, if I were forced to go back to film to shoot anything, I’d stop shooting. My sense of smell is gone from way too frequient acetic acid (stop bath) inhalation. The 000’s of dollars I’ve spent on film, processing, is money that I would have gladly spent on new Leica gear 🙂 The caustic chemicals I’and other photogs/labs have flushed down the drain probably killed more sea life than anyone would care to admit. Film is dead; good riddance..
I’m curious when I read a comment like yours Chris, referring to the pollution or “sea life” killed by film chemicals, etc…. do you really believe that no life was harmed in the manufacturing of your digital gear? I am not asking this sarcastically, but sincerely.
Actually I believe that in an industrialized society, causing environmental harm is a byproduct of keeping the machine fed. The few laws society enacts only partially mitigate that harm.
Just about everyone wants to copy films look and feel.
Companies and organizations heavy invested in digital and software seem to hate film…
That’s a good combination to create legendary art form. Not just another medium.
In the end it’s about creating the best memories possible.
After shooting only film for 2 years, I replaced my trusty M7 for the new M. When I left the camera store I had a bad feeling, something telling me that I will miss that camera a lot.
I hope that I won’t end with the same oppinion as you!
The debate that has ensued, irrespective of whether Peter’s comment intentionally or unintentionally provoked it, could be highly esoteric or trivial. The comments that have already been made prove this. I shoot both film and digital and at the trivial level, I can guarantee that photography will not die if film dies – there is no doubt about it. All one has to do is look at the number of “selfies” people take everyday. However, I would also posit that at an esoteric level, photography would not die if film dies.
To me (Peter, please jump in here to correct me because what I’m about to say below is partly my interpretation of your thoughts), the much better tonal gradations, shadow detail, micro-contrast, and “aura of film” is not what photography is about. Photography is simply about what the photographer “sees” and whether the chosen click of the shutter effectively conveys the feeling/message/idea/aesthetics the photographer had at the moment. Good tonal gradation, shadow detail, micro-contrast is all irrelevant if the photographer arbitrarily releases the shutter at any moment in time. The starting point must always be that the shutter is being released at the moment that best conveys the feeling, story, idea. Moreover, in those situations where we are without the benefit of a series of pictures, that one picture must convey in a very obvious way. Otherwise, I would argue that any picture can be viewed as “mundane” and any of the purported benefits of film will not change it or make it better.
Some have mentioned above about “tugging the heart strings”….that will and can only happen if a picture reminds “you” of a prior or current personal experience that is heartfelt. A picture that engenders a heartfelt experience has absolutely nothing to do with whether the picture has good shadow detail or whether the bokeh is busy or smooth. It all comes down to whether we can relate to it…and if that is photography (which it is to me) it will never die no matter what medium is used or is created.
I guess the bottom line for me is that — all things being equal (including the “timing” of a shot and everything else you noted above Kevin) — if I have a great digital image, I always look at it and think “I wish I’d taken that with film”.
So for me the medium does matter.
Somehow my best digital work leaves me unsatisfied. Even my more mundane film work appeals to me more… seems more “real” somehow.
I realize that it’s my opinion, and I do not expect others to agree.
This comment amongst all of these resonates most for me personally.
I love shooting both digital and film, regularly switching, I just never get that same excitement or kick from shooting a digital image.
I’ve long wondered why, and have concluded that’s as much the process as the medium of film. Everything from the build of those old mechanical cameras (even the humble ones are build like tanks), having to wait to see the results, that frame you forgot you took, the ride to the colour lab through the city back streets or the moment a spool of film is pulled from the final wash (I’m still surprised there’s anything on it at all!)… this process to get to the final image makes it feel like I created something, however daft that might seem.
Yesterday I developed my first 4×5 inch negatives and felt that same kick all over again. Seeing those big negs on the scanner, I really couldn’t wait to see what was on them.
Some day I might, but as yet I’ve never felt this way about images created digitally. It’s not a question of one being ‘better’ than the other, which in my opinion is a pointless and futile debate…. I’d say to anyone getting into photography to embrace both, learn about one from the other, shoot what makes you happy and feel grateful that we currently have such a wealth of options!
i love the convenience of digital, just like i love the convenience of a microwave oven.
but neither is a substitute for the real thing.
Logically I am sure you know that photography will not die, but it will evolve and probably become stronger.
Also, from a viewer’s perspective a good image is a good image regardless of the medium…
So, I think you speak from the perspective of the creator, and probably from an emotional one as well, which makes me thing if these thoughts are driven by a nostalgic mood and an internal search for something more, deeper than tonal gradation… Is it a reflection of an artistic need for something new?
Having said that, I did buy a film camera this week! 🙂
Hi Peter, I can honestly say this is one of the rare times that I would disagree. I have only been inspired to shoot over these years in the digital medium. I have tried my share of film, but it’s never motivated me as does picking up a digital. Yes, for me, there is a enjoyment in the immediate fullfillment of seeing an image when I get home to the computer. I do think film is almost a different way of seeing, a different art, with its own aesthetic, but at the end of the day, I believe that digital photography has moved photography past film…this is not always a good thing in my eyes, as more images are taken now than ever before (primarily with camera phones). I am curious how companies with a photography investment will adapt. Many will die, others will find a way to thrive, and fill will persist in microscopic form for those who choose to utilize it, as you are doing, for its strengths…But I would hasten to say that photography, in general and in commerical use, has moved past film, and that film is dying, but will unlikely fully die off…
Ashwin,
When are you going to make your way to Toronto, so I can really tell you what I think about you?… over a beer 🙂
Peter.
I don’t believe photography is the medium to which it’s recorded on. Photography is the content of the images and the rest is almost inconsequential, or at least, high personal. You find what you like the look of, the use of, the feel of etc and you make photos with it.
Well, it’s a moot point, because I can’t see film dying. It’s not on the radar.
I do know this for sure: it is no crime for a photographer to have opinions on equipment and materials. And yes, they do matter. Even painters care about paints, brushes, canvases, etc. Yes, they do.
Prosophos 
I completely disagree. Film, digital, whatever. They’re just different methods of recording one’s esthetic interpretation of what the photographers’ minds-eye sees.
Thank you for your honesty Chris.
Hey Peter: If I can give you another very biased opinion… since the demise of your M9 and frustrations with Leica over CMOS, for all of the before-mentioned reasons, I think your site is denigrating into a concern more about the technology and less about the aesthetic that makes you as an artist unique. No pun intended, but I think you’re loosing your focus on why you created this site in the first place.
To a large extent, you are correct.
But, I’m undergoing a transformation, and that’s always a messy business.
However, I’ve been very happy with my yield of “favourite” images thus far this year.
I too disagree. Photography is about the content, not format. Taking mundane pictures of your children on film or digital doesn’t alter the fact they’re mundane (the photographs, not your children). Who cares about the “quality” of film or medium format when it’s wasted on hobbiest equipment lovers like yourself and your sycophants.
Bill…if you can’t deliver your point of view with “constructive” criticism or a forma suitable don’t deliver it at all. At least not on Peter’s site. There are loads of other sites for these types of comments you can visit.
By the way…..lets have a look at your photography Bill :-). I suspect it will be “mundane” ……!
“Bill S” was previously banned from the site (he used a different name back then).
And Andrew, I too suspect that he won’t be sharing any of his images.
Peter, I’m not at all sure that I agree with you, but it is interesting that David Bailey said during an interview about his latest exhibition in London, that he feels that real photography is done with film. He says or at least implies very strongly that he does not use a digital camera. He is a self confessed camera nut, he loves cameras and in particular film cameras.
Using the Monochrom and with careful post processing I can get images that are quite filmic in nature.
If I remember correctly DB uses M43 cameras for his digital work. Hates all digital Leica rangefinders…
Not sure about Bailey & m43 cameras but I do know he still shoots a lot of film, I’ve seen him walking around central London with a Leica M7 around his neck and he often pops into the Aperture Camera Cafe. Also uses a Mamiya 7 too.
He has a Voigtlander Bessa and a Panasonic M43 camera (with the 20mm Panny F1.7) in this photo: http://pleasurephoto.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/david-bailey-color.jpg
In fairness, there’s a lot to like about M43s. No, image quality isn’t as good – but sometimes the shot is more important than the quality IYSWIM
Hi John,
I can honestly say that the Monochrom is in a class of its own when it comes to B&W photography. But I can equally honestly say that it doesn’t render like film.
It depends on how you define the word photography, if it’s just image making no it won’t digital is it I am afraid. If film goes then I think the art of photography (there’s a difference) will die, and that’s where I think you sit Peter your encapsulated in the art of photography.
Indeed Pi, I was referring to the “art”.
But more than this, there’s a candy-coated quality to digital images (including my own) that is off-putting. Maybe it’s a Bayer sensor thing, because the rendering of the Foveon chip appeals to me (and the Monochrom comes close too).
Will I use a digital camera again in the future? Of course. But when I periodically review images I’ve taken, it’s the film ones that tug at my heartstrings the most.
I don’t think it’s only about the content or end-result. For a lot of us, photography is a family endeavor aimed more towards recording moments in our own lives. Not sure why so many “pros” seem to think everyone with an interest in photography should share their bottom-line/end-result mentality (personally would not want to make my living photographing people/places/things that were not important to me). I recently went away for a family weekend and left the laptop and digi-cam at home. Just one film camera. The sense of “being there” was tangible and even a little nostalgic. We’re so used to fiddling with these camera/computers, and being distracted by them, that photography as we knew it is dying. If film goes, we’d definitely lose some of what made photography special. Most won’t notice.
I agree 100% MJ.
As for the “pro” mentality, I previously wrote this:
http://photographsbypeter.com/2012/01/08/if-youre-just-photographing-your-family/
I personally think it’s more to do with how technology is moving vs. moving away from film. For instance the CCD era of sensors were the first iteration and then CMOS bringing new capabilities beyond that. We are getting further and further away from the origins of photography in terms of “the basics” including ergonomically and the rendering of sensors (film vs. digital).
So based on that, it’s an aspect of current photography tools I don’t like(their progress) and therefore I naturally want to stay closer to the basics. That’s the way I see/view or feel about your comment in the title. I’m having a year with film now, though it’s more to enjoy it while it’s about and see if I learn a few things, slow down, etc. Would it worry me to go back to digital, not at all. However it’s not the latest digital technology which I like…..I have a curiosity though also personally find it a bit boring.
I bet that years from now Andrew, when you review your images, you’ll be most proud of the ones you created with film. Not just because they exacted more effort, but because they will more successfully conjure up the “ghosts of the past”.
I always wonder why someone would spend time looking at material they had zero interest in or rapport with not to mention undertake to insult the source of that material and, as well, in one fell swoop, everyone whose tastes and interests are contrary enough to his as to actually find, not just enjoyment, but inspiration and artistic reward in the same material (which, I suppose, would include the gallery owner who has staked a portion of his enterprise’s reputation on the work of that source). Anyway. Not worth further worries about such peculiarities.
As to this cleverly stated piece of thought provocation from our host. Photography is an amalgam of two greek roots: photo = light and graphia = to write. So writing with light. The dictionary defines it as the process of producing an image on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light. You have to work a bit to make digital imaging fit either definition, since other processes so intervene as to eliminate any direct writing with light.
Second, Marshall McLuhan’s famous remark about medium and message has been oft repeated but sometimes not very accurately. The statement suggests only that the medium operates in a symbiotic way with the message so as to significantly affect how the message is perceived.
I doubt Peter suggests that imaging dies with film, but rather by definition it’ll be something else and the loss of that medium will certainly greatly affect how the image content is perceived. What merit whatever processes we’re working toward will have, what attributes it’ll draw forward, they’ll be different. Perhaps in time in a very satisfying way, or after a while, like turntables, a certain segment will make a convincing enough argument for it’s analogue goodness as to allow film to not only perpetuate, but to precipitate new enterprises specializing in supporting ancillary equipment and services enthusiastically embraced by a whole new wave of followers.
Film is dead… long live film. PS Before I get too carried away, let me reiterate my oft repeated confession here and elsewhere, that I never use the stuff myself, I’m just to dang lazy…
greg g49 wrote:
…the loss of that medium will certainly greatly affect how the image content is perceived.
That will certainly be the case for me. Thank you for the very thoughtful post Greg.
—Peter.
One might also posit that this has already occurred.
Perhaps.
Hello Peter,
It is an interesting comment. At first, I find that it will stir up argument. But I appreciate where you are coming from. It inspires thoughts in me though. To me, photographic tools nowadays are proliferating into many formats due to advances in digital technology. Anybody can take images and sometimes, one can find great images from a smartphone taken by someone not even understanding the holy grail of photographic theory. With todays cameras & sensors, one can find subtle differences in image quality amongst them. Tools aside, the rest will depend on the photographer themselves. Then, my take is that photography is not just the medium (film or sensors) & tools; and it is really the art & philosophy behind it that gives meaning & soul. The passion is most important (as an art, hobby, profession etc) and each of us is different & be inspired by different tool, medium & techniques, at different point in time. Sometimes, it is like fashion trend. There is no one particular fashion that can be forever. People get bored & move on.
I can see that these days you are reverting to film a lot. That also inspires me to try film for a moment however, I do not come around to that yet as it will take me a lot of new passion, commitment & time which I do not have at the moment. However, it is good to look at your transitions.
Happy shooting & appreciate your sharing.
Michael Sin.
Honestly Michael, I wasn’t intentionally trying to be provocative. It was a summary statement of my current thinking.
The discussion that has ensued has been very stimulating to me. Thank you for adding to it in a constructive way.
As a true art form, I think you are probably right Peter. I have loved photography since my mid teens. In those days you would see the subject, develop the film and then go to the darkroom and print. I remember massaging the paper in the developer to heat up areas that needed more development to make the best print possible. It was WONDERFUL. That was four decades ago. I now shoot a digital camera and enjoy it…but it doesn’t FEEL the same.
i would have to disagree. photography will keep going strong. as much as i like film i don’t think i essential for good photography.
Marc
I agree with your sentiment Peter.
Certainly Photography would loose its soul if film ever did die.
But I don’t think it will.
I hope you are right Antonio.
Being from the pre digital era. I agree with the statement. For me all photography leans/connects on my experiences of photographing with film. Difficult to explain but seeing an image and that feeling of an analog image makes my ‘heartstrings’ resonate. Sometimes a digital image will do so too. Most of the time that will be a digital image that has/simulates a filmic look.
I ‘feel’ the analog camera’s, I ‘feel’ loading the camera with film, I ‘feel’ the processing of the rolls and most of all i ‘feel’ the results. I enjoy and am much more aware of the process. It’s more deliberate. Much more than using a digital tool to produce images. Consequently there is more of me in the image, if that makes sense.
I also take digital pictures but for me something fundamental will be really lost when shooting on film will not be possible anymore.
Now if this will make any sense for the generation that never saw a roll of Film, Vinyl, Music Cassette or even CD.. But for me analog photography is here to stay.
At 60 years and 6 mo. young 😉 I have a stack of 33 rpm records (Beatles, The Who, et.al.) sitting in the basement of my home, that I feel some day might be worth something. That said, if I were forced to go back to film to shoot anything, I’d stop shooting. My sense of smell is gone from way too frequient acetic acid (stop bath) inhalation. The 000’s of dollars I’ve spent on film, processing, is money that I would have gladly spent on new Leica gear 🙂 The caustic chemicals I’and other photogs/labs have flushed down the drain probably killed more sea life than anyone would care to admit. Film is dead; good riddance..
I’m curious when I read a comment like yours Chris, referring to the pollution or “sea life” killed by film chemicals, etc…. do you really believe that no life was harmed in the manufacturing of your digital gear? I am not asking this sarcastically, but sincerely.
Actually I believe that in an industrialized society, causing environmental harm is a byproduct of keeping the machine fed. The few laws society enacts only partially mitigate that harm.
Just about everyone wants to copy films look and feel.
Companies and organizations heavy invested in digital and software seem to hate film…
That’s a good combination to create legendary art form. Not just another medium.
In the end it’s about creating the best memories possible.
After shooting only film for 2 years, I replaced my trusty M7 for the new M. When I left the camera store I had a bad feeling, something telling me that I will miss that camera a lot.
I hope that I won’t end with the same oppinion as you!
The debate that has ensued, irrespective of whether Peter’s comment intentionally or unintentionally provoked it, could be highly esoteric or trivial. The comments that have already been made prove this. I shoot both film and digital and at the trivial level, I can guarantee that photography will not die if film dies – there is no doubt about it. All one has to do is look at the number of “selfies” people take everyday. However, I would also posit that at an esoteric level, photography would not die if film dies.
To me (Peter, please jump in here to correct me because what I’m about to say below is partly my interpretation of your thoughts), the much better tonal gradations, shadow detail, micro-contrast, and “aura of film” is not what photography is about. Photography is simply about what the photographer “sees” and whether the chosen click of the shutter effectively conveys the feeling/message/idea/aesthetics the photographer had at the moment. Good tonal gradation, shadow detail, micro-contrast is all irrelevant if the photographer arbitrarily releases the shutter at any moment in time. The starting point must always be that the shutter is being released at the moment that best conveys the feeling, story, idea. Moreover, in those situations where we are without the benefit of a series of pictures, that one picture must convey in a very obvious way. Otherwise, I would argue that any picture can be viewed as “mundane” and any of the purported benefits of film will not change it or make it better.
Some have mentioned above about “tugging the heart strings”….that will and can only happen if a picture reminds “you” of a prior or current personal experience that is heartfelt. A picture that engenders a heartfelt experience has absolutely nothing to do with whether the picture has good shadow detail or whether the bokeh is busy or smooth. It all comes down to whether we can relate to it…and if that is photography (which it is to me) it will never die no matter what medium is used or is created.
I guess the bottom line for me is that — all things being equal (including the “timing” of a shot and everything else you noted above Kevin) — if I have a great digital image, I always look at it and think “I wish I’d taken that with film”.
So for me the medium does matter.
Somehow my best digital work leaves me unsatisfied. Even my more mundane film work appeals to me more… seems more “real” somehow.
I realize that it’s my opinion, and I do not expect others to agree.
This comment amongst all of these resonates most for me personally.
I love shooting both digital and film, regularly switching, I just never get that same excitement or kick from shooting a digital image.
I’ve long wondered why, and have concluded that’s as much the process as the medium of film. Everything from the build of those old mechanical cameras (even the humble ones are build like tanks), having to wait to see the results, that frame you forgot you took, the ride to the colour lab through the city back streets or the moment a spool of film is pulled from the final wash (I’m still surprised there’s anything on it at all!)… this process to get to the final image makes it feel like I created something, however daft that might seem.
Yesterday I developed my first 4×5 inch negatives and felt that same kick all over again. Seeing those big negs on the scanner, I really couldn’t wait to see what was on them.
Some day I might, but as yet I’ve never felt this way about images created digitally. It’s not a question of one being ‘better’ than the other, which in my opinion is a pointless and futile debate…. I’d say to anyone getting into photography to embrace both, learn about one from the other, shoot what makes you happy and feel grateful that we currently have such a wealth of options!
i love the convenience of digital, just like i love the convenience of a microwave oven.
but neither is a substitute for the real thing.
Logically I am sure you know that photography will not die, but it will evolve and probably become stronger.
Also, from a viewer’s perspective a good image is a good image regardless of the medium…
So, I think you speak from the perspective of the creator, and probably from an emotional one as well, which makes me thing if these thoughts are driven by a nostalgic mood and an internal search for something more, deeper than tonal gradation… Is it a reflection of an artistic need for something new?
Having said that, I did buy a film camera this week! 🙂
Hi Peter, I can honestly say this is one of the rare times that I would disagree. I have only been inspired to shoot over these years in the digital medium. I have tried my share of film, but it’s never motivated me as does picking up a digital. Yes, for me, there is a enjoyment in the immediate fullfillment of seeing an image when I get home to the computer. I do think film is almost a different way of seeing, a different art, with its own aesthetic, but at the end of the day, I believe that digital photography has moved photography past film…this is not always a good thing in my eyes, as more images are taken now than ever before (primarily with camera phones). I am curious how companies with a photography investment will adapt. Many will die, others will find a way to thrive, and fill will persist in microscopic form for those who choose to utilize it, as you are doing, for its strengths…But I would hasten to say that photography, in general and in commerical use, has moved past film, and that film is dying, but will unlikely fully die off…
Ashwin,
When are you going to make your way to Toronto, so I can really tell you what I think about you?… over a beer 🙂
Peter.
I don’t believe photography is the medium to which it’s recorded on. Photography is the content of the images and the rest is almost inconsequential, or at least, high personal. You find what you like the look of, the use of, the feel of etc and you make photos with it.
Well, it’s a moot point, because I can’t see film dying. It’s not on the radar.
I do know this for sure: it is no crime for a photographer to have opinions on equipment and materials. And yes, they do matter. Even painters care about paints, brushes, canvases, etc. Yes, they do.