A lot of photographers today use digital for ease of storage, easy viewing, and just quicker shooting. There are those who still stay true to film and make art with it, not just pictures. Nicola Odemann is a 20 year old photographer who has taken up the film medium and has done some awesome things with it.
"I’m twenty years old and I love taking photos as it allows me to memorize great moments. I shoot landscapes mainly because I think there is nothing greater than the simple beauty of nature. In the city you are someone, in nature you’re just human. Therefore I love spending my time outdoors – surrounded by great mountains and beautiful sceneries." - Nicola Odemann
What are your thoughts on these? Should people move on and try something new or stick around with film and keep doing what they are doing?
via - thedphoto.com
Am I starting to see a pattern here? around or under 20yo, shoots film (if not, uses a lot of postprocessing)...
and let the film vs digital debate end right...now!
yes, you do see a pattern :-)
The generation to come up after today's twenty-somethings are the "artist" archetype. They're predicted to return to non-digital mediums like painting and classical music instruments etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
Absolutely not! If they want to use film and they enjoy the process, why tell them "You can't do that anymore. Digital is the only way!"
I am still using film because of 1) My 30+ year old Canon A-1 w/ MA Motor Drive still works, 2) Film is still available; 3) I haven't decided which Canon EOS model to buy; and 4) The DSLR market is an arms race with Canon and Nikon introducing new models each week.
The DSLR business model is following the Detroit model of years ago with "planned obsolescence"
I am in the market for a DSLR, but I would still use my A-1.
In fact, I want to get into medium format with a Mamiya 645 (for when I need longer reach) and an RX67.
Yea, and a 4x5 view camera.
One advantage back in the film days was that you could use a lesser camera but still use the same optics of a high-end body. Therefore the lens and the film were the two equalizers that allowed anyone with talent to create an image that would be just as good as a "pro".
Only recently to some degree are you seeing this in digital, but you still need a high-end body to get great noise, high bit, or high res, etc. Back then you could put Kodachrome 25 in (for instance) a Nikon F or a Nikkormat with a 50mm Nikkor and had the same resolution and essentially taken the same exact image.
I am a 19 Y.O photographer and the reason i use film is money. even though it costs a little bit in the long run, i have never had enough spare money at one time to shell out on a nice full frame DSLR and a few lenses. But for under $800 i set my self up with a med format and 35mm system's along with 4 fantastic lenses & darkroom/scanning set up. I also own a D90, which i haven't used since as the image quality is such a step down from film!
Look like Instagram shots. Film or no film, at the end we all view it on our digital screens :)
Unless you print in the darkroom! While that still will not garnish you online views, it is nice to have on the wall when you have guests.
he has good eye and you can see that he puts heart in making photos, anyway those are shots im not goin to remember for a long time i think... and yes, i think hipstamatic-instagram made people sick about crossprocess and this kind of things.. that doesn't make those techniques bad, but im not shooting anything like this until this big wave stops, sure.
(not goin to take part in useless rambo-vs-godzilla discussions)
Well, of course...Rambo would surely win...
The camera you use film or digital is not the issue. What matters is the final image and if you are able to create your creative vision.
For practical reasons most working professionals shot digital but on a purely creative level who really cares what you use.
yawwwwn. Really? C'mon guys a LOT of people still use film. I'm getting really tired of expecting more out of FS.
If you read the title of an article that says "Young Film Photographer" and you think this is an over done trend, then just don't read the damn article and stop all the complaining that seems to be more common than videos on here. If you want to look at some photos then great, look at them and move on. Fstoppers never had a mission statement that said they would only post Chase Jarvis videos to make all the high and mighty photographers out there happy. They are a social platform for people to engage with cinematography and photography on all levels.
The analog film is still alive! Just digital media forcing this bullshit that film is dead and it's time to move on...
I'm 24yo and I still use film because when I was a 8-10yo child my father and grandfather bought for me an analog camera and materials. I usually work with various Canon and Nikon DSLRs (D800, 5Dmk3, etc) but when I take photos just for me, I love use analog film!
My friends are piss me off often with "Oh, you hipster, what is in your neck, is this a Leica or LOMO?"
No, fcuk you... It's Zeiss Ikon medium format camera from my grandfather! I'm not hipster, I'm not lomographer! I'm photographer who still fell in love with analog!
And if the analog is dead, why everybody adding "analog effetcs" to the digital photos? Everybody love analog or "analog feeling", but most of the photographers just too stupid for use that!
p.s. Sorry for my grammar, English isn't my native language.
i shoot Digital for work and film for self....Have a gorgeous 'Blad and a lovely Zeiss, shooting rolls of film still is vastly more satisfying to me and reminds me of the days when i trained and had access to darkrooms. Aaah.
These have still been edited though, I've shot (cross processed as well) a lot of film, on a lot of cameras and various scanners and software, and never really seen anything from the stocks come out like this.
The reason I love film so much is because it simply removes most of these choices of editing and such, you make the choices before hand (400H, Gold, Portra, Tri-X, Delta 3200, whatever).
My 5D Mark III gets a lot of neglect to my various film cameras, but it's not because I Just think Film as a physical entity is the better way to take a photo for everyone, but because I love the process and involvement, and the simplicity and the slowing down process of it all. 90% of the work, whether for clients or personal is film. Lots.... and I mean lots, of people still shoot all film.
but these are still edited, which to me defeats the purpose of most film shooting, at least in my opinion.
how do you know they are edited? not judging, just curious
It's little disheartening to go out of your way to use a medium like film that still has good potential for creative use, only to finalize the image with an Instagram process. He could have just used a cell phone and have been done with it.
but then chris wouldn't call it art but just pictures...