There's been a lot of (digital) ink spilled about the look and feel of film photos being vastly superior to their digital counterparts, and while that's a question up for debate, there's also something else I've noticed among my fellow film-shooting friends: the propensity to elevate objectively terrible photos as art.
If that sounds like a hot take to you, there's at least one photographer that seems to be in agreement with me. In a new video from UK-based photographer Max Kent, he looks at how a lot of photos he shot on film—ones he thought were pretty good—were actually fairly ordinary photos that just happened to be shot on film for that "film look."
That's not to say all his work was this way. In the video above, he shows many examples of his own work that are quite wonderful, but all of that got me thinking about the last roll of film I shot and just why my photos—and indeed the film photos of many ordinary folks—turn out to be ho-hum.
I remember my last roll of film that I shot was in 2009, using a Canon EOS Elan and some Tri-X film. I clearly didn't find anything useful in the roll since I didn't bother to scan it, but then again, most of the photos were more "documentary" in their purpose. Not in a stylistic way, but rather, I wanted to document my friends and the places I had been. Instead of being bold or ambitious with my photography, I would stand at eye level and point the camera at the thing or person because it was the safest way to get the shot with the limited number of exposures on a roll of film. Basically, I knew it cost me money every time I took a shot, so I generally didn't unless I was sure.
And that's where digital changed the game. It made the film look an aesthetic—one that could be applied to a digital file if you wanted the look. It allowed for a level of experimentation without the cost.
I did some weird things photographically back in the day, like carrying a Canon EOS D30 in 2009 and shooting tons of photos even though I had a perfectly working 5D Mark II at home. I just liked the unquantifiable "feel" of the D30 even though its autofocus was primitive, it's viewfinder crap, and its screen damn near illegible. Oh, and it had 1/7th of the resolution of the 5D Mark II. That last part made choosing that camera as my everyday carry a decision I came to regret in the years since.
But there will always be purists, and with phones and digital cameras in plentiful supply, there's now more space for art with actual film. Me? If I need that old-school fix, I'll just grab the D30 for a look I can't get with my cameras today.
How do you feel about film photography these days? Sound off in the comments below.
HHmm well.... i will not make any proclamations on this point but I will share my experience. I am 59. I grew up first shooting on my moms Kodak instamatic 126. After that I had a few 35 mm point and shoots. A couple actually had motorized film advance. Then when I got a job that allowed me I bought my first 35mm SLR. A Vivitar Pentax knock off. Followed by a Sear KSX Pentax Knock Off. Then I graduated to my first digital camera. IXLA Prophoto 640 . Sensor size 480 x 640. It was fixed focus with zero manual adjustments. Up till this point no camera I had ever used had a zoom lens or auto focus. That iXLA while taking lower quality pics began a revolution in my photography. I could soot endless amounts of pictures at the pace of about 22 before downloading to the computer. I could fix or enhance the photo in the computer. Next camera was a 1MP HP with auto focus followed by a 3.2 MP Canon Powershot A75. I was still shooting film some at this point but at a greatly reducing rate. I had no facilities to fix my film photos after the shot and had to wait days to see them. I could not afford the dozens of rolls of film that it would have taken to equal by quantity of digital camera shutter clicks. And last but not least I was simply getting far better shots with my digital cameras. From that point I bought a Pentax ist DL 6 MP camera with a couple zoom lenses and film has never really reentered my picture . Aside from pure nostalgia I can not imagine a reason for me personally to ever return to film. My current camera is not a modern every bell and whistle camera yet at 20 MP my Pentax KS2 with its flippy screen , weather tight body , 6 or so frames per second , decently quick focus , in body IS , 52,000 ISO and compatibility with hundreds of past and present lenses is doing well for me. This camera is so much more than anything I had ever dreamed I could or would own. Its no flagship nor was it ever. At some point I will probably get the Pentax K1 III just because it has 36 MP. Now I suppose I should actually say something about this article. Is film photography better than Digital? Does film Photography produce better images? If you are a skillful photographer no , not at all. Is Digital photography better than film? Does Digital produce better images? If you are a skillful photographer nope , not at all. The idea of better is purely a matter of taste.
I am nearly 66 and have loved photography since the early 1970's. My first camera was a Chinon CS with a 50mm f1.7 lens, bought it from Dixons ha ha! Anyway, I had so many different 35mm cameras after that, a lot of budget Chinon and Cosina SLR's that were actually very good. Later I had an Olympus OM1 and then a OM2 SP, then finally my last SLR was a Minolta 9000 and into the AF era. My first digital camera was a Minolta Dimage 7 and for me it was a revalation, no more expensive film and processing costs, no more wasted frames from bad exposure or blurriness. Do I miss using film? No! Do I think digital is better quality than film? Yes, without no doubt, my photography has improved immensly since using digital and there is no way I would ever go back to film
I like the idea of self-restraint expressed in film photography, but discipline allows for the same achievement in digital photography. However, I'm really unsure about its environmental impact. The process is enjoyable, but does it consume too many resources (such as film production and selling, processing, logistics, etc.) if the results are the same digital scans?
This is not my stance; it is just a thought. My answer is I don't know.
No and Yes! I am a veteran film person of the 70's and 80's with a Canon Ftb. I was in the U.S. Navy at the start of my career when a retiring 1st class on his last cruise showed be away to record places with a camera Canon Ftb and a hand full of lenses and prism filters. The difference between Film and digital is with film you have to keep a log book of who, when, where and what with settings of each capture as well as film roll type and maker with speed, you become the Metadata of an image and historian of your travels!!! What many photographers just starting out fail to be told is it is all about experimentation and if you do not like being a mad scientist doing this and that and not knowing the results for weeks or even months (I had to send film back to kodak by mail) film may not be for you!
Even with digital you need to keep a log book of travels of when, where, who and what not just your memory. Metadata is nice but not all info is there.
Also there is no where to put the info on the back of a photo unless you do a print, Lrc does give you a space in the Metadata for Title and comments, but who uses that?
Next again and main thing about film or digital no matter the greatest of camera with all the bells and whistles and options is the study of the tool and workings as well as the many editing programs, it is a lot of info to digest for you become a self taught student where today digital cameras have 600 page books covering most everything you can do and with film again types, speeds, 25, 50, 100 to 1,000+ ASA and grainy or not. All the info can not be seen on a simple YouTube video or multiple parts 1,2,3 etc. and all has to be on instant recall my you for what ever you want to capture for it is all about light- dim or bright and colors.
All of it all is a very deep well you fall into with no ladder but just exit signs and the many levels you pass.
A bonus of film is all lenses are FAST GLASS and little and no Lens Profiles because they are made for the millimeter the camera is made for, next bonus is for your digital camera and the $20 adapters for the lenses to what ever camera but the downside is getting the lens and settings into a metadata file. Thankfully there is LensTagger app for Lrc and other programs your ace in the hole for your memory!
Another key to the capture in either or what is the framing that is also self taught for all the types race through you mind when the camera is in front of your eye, something in many books but flash through your mind like flash bulbs but also as you scan a place without a camera as you walkabout or drive about checking places.
Finally are you just capturing a tourist attraction or a story you will call art one day, your choice!
Always
Sorry, what makes you a better photographer is if you are getting paid.
Nope. There are a ton of paid photographers that do mediocre and crappy work. They may be better marketing themselves, but, not necessarily a better photographer.
I just don't understand this film thing now, and I did film for my entire photographic career (yup, I'm that old).
Not at all. Money ruins true creativity