A while back, I talked about my photography journey in a post entitled Why I'm Still Embroiled in the Film vs. Digital Debate. I wanted to write about the film/digital question because that discussion has a tendency to turn nasty when brought up in online forums. I have no idea why. I mean, we're talking about what kind of camera you use to take pictures and make movies, for crying out loud. So many other subjects--child abuse, domestic abuse, drug abuse, war, etc.--deserve a strong emotional response. Film vs. digital? It seems trivial by comparison. So why all the drama?
I think part of the reason is that the film purists tend to come off as a bit snobby when talking about their art form. I can understand why they would have that mindset. After all, photography and filmmaking used to be disciplines reserved for those most dedicated to the craft. Learning to get a good picture (and even more so a good movie) on film was (is) hard work. It doesn't happen overnight. Why? Because when you're using real film you're shooting blind. You don't know if your picture is going to turn out dark or grainy, or if the shudder speed is so slow it results in a motion blur, until you've shot an entire roll of film and taken it for processing. So to do anything professional with the medium, you really have to know your craft. You have to practice. You have to shoot hundreds of terrible photos so you can learn from them and not make the same mistakes again. Then, when you know the workings of your camera inside and out, you can think about going pro.
Not so with digital. If you have a digital camera, you can see the finished image before you shoot. You can adjust and get it almost perfect before you even take the picture. And if the picture turns out terrible? You can immediately delete it and snap another.
Because of all this, I think some film photographers feel they've earned bragging rights that digital photographers don't have.
But why are the digital guys so adamant that we should just let film die? Well, I think they may feel insulted by everything I've mentioned above. But that doesn't mean film should die. It just means digital photographers should fight for their chosen medium. To each his own, right?
Maybe the issue is that some film enthusiasts want to keep harping on all those points, to the degree that digital photographers are made to feel like they have to use film if they want to be "real" photographers. And the digital guys don't want to use film because of the freedom digital cameras give them and because...well...film is expensive and who wants to have to pay as much as a dollar per exposure (depending on what film you're using and how much your lab charges for processing) when digital makes every shot free?
Still, I don't think that is a reason to let film die. It has a different look from digital, especially if we're talking about filmmaking, and that's reason enough to keep it around. Some people will always prefer it and they have the right to create their art the way they want to create it.
Should I Go Digital?
In another post, What I Learned in my First (Semi) Professional Portrait Session in Over 10 Years, I discuss my frustrations with the fact that I can't afford a digital camera. I'm frustrated because if I want to be a professional portrait/event photographer, I can't keep shooting film. First of all, it's expensive, and I'd make more money if I made the switch. And second, clients have come to have certain expectations from a photo shoot. Quite often, they like to see their pictures right away. They want to pay by the hour instead of by the roll and have grown accustomed to a copious amount of shots being taken in that hour. And they've come to expect perfection, which is something a digital photographer can give them because a digital camera tells you immediately if you've messed up a picture.
In addition, film does not do well in low light, which makes it less than ideal for capturing those candid wedding shots everyone loves.
But should I switch? The thing is, I love film. Especially in movies. When I watch a movie, I notice right away if there are dots dancing in the white part of the screen, and if I see the dots (I'm talking about film grain, if you haven't figured it out) then I enjoy the movie even more. I love the look of a movie shot on 16mm. It reminds me of a lot of the low-budget horror movies from the seventies. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a beautiful (in terms of cinematography) film shot on an Eclair ACL. Then there's The Evil Dead. Ah, The Evil Dead. That great beacon of hope for all amateur filmmakers everywhere. It's truly one of those movies you watch and think to yourself, "If they could do it, so can I!" And it was shot on an Arriflex 16 BL.
Yeah, I nerd out on cameras a little bit.
But, the thing is, I nerd out on film cameras. I don't feel the gentle stirrings in my soul when I think about digital. And honestly? Now that I've spent so much time learning the intricacies of real film, if I make the switch, I think it will feel like cheating.
But the question is, do I need to make the switch? There are still a lot of artists out there shooting exclusively on film. Why can't I be one of them? Why can't I make that part of my brand? There are a lot of reasons, of course. Cost of processing is a big part of it. But, if I ever manage to go pro, all I need to do is charge enough money to compensate for the cost of developing and I'll come out in the black.
So what's a camera nerd to do? Buy a digital camera because it would make achieving my dream of professional photography easier? Or stick with film because it's what makes me unique? And, let's face it, I really do love film.
No comments:
Post a Comment