Having just judged another massive contest, I can speak from authority when I say, “I don’t care you are using film.” And I’ll go one step further. In quite a few cases, film is holding you back, and in a variety of ways. The only folks who will care you use film are others using film who still think this is a selling point. It’s not. This is similar to saying, “I’m an iPhone photographer.” Really? Who isn’t? The novelty of these things wore off decades ago, and too many folks are using this material stance as a base for operations. It isn’t working.
The beauty of film is in the limitation.
Thirty six exposures, that’s it. Or twelve, or eight, or nine, or even four. The inability to see the images. The idea you must slow down a bit. The reality you can’t afford to overshoot, and the crazy price tag forcing you to think before you act. All good. But most people aren’t using film this way. Most people are focusing on the fact they are using film but forget to either come up with a good project, or focus too much on the how and not enough on the what. What does your take look like?
You can say, “Well, the take isn’t great but did I mention I shot this on film?” That’s what it FEELS like you are saying. This might work on YouTube for an uninformed audience concerned about the color of the soft release button, but for someone like me who has been looking at images for over thirty years, sorry, this doesn’t fly. Film is also holding you back because you aren’t shooting enough. That crazy price tag is stifling your ability to work a scene, which is why SO much work is posed. Gone is the reality based image and in is the staged portrait series with a few urban landscapes void of people. No, no, and no. There are just TOO many of these being done. They have lost all relevance. This especially applies to anyone shooting medium format.
Isn’t it funny how we allow for this nostalgic stance, but if someone said “I shot this with a digital slr, “ everyone would respond, “So.”
Film isn’t better than other means. Film is different. Use it if you want, but if you lead the conversation with “I’m a film photographer,” I can almost guarantee your work isn’t very good. You might be using film to achieve some preordained “look” that film photographers are supposed to have, and again, that plays well on platforms of the uninformed, but if I’m taking the time to study your work you better hope you have the goods to back it up.
I keep seeing projects and wonder “Where is the rest of this?” You can wear a felt hat, or a knit beanie, you can dress and act like a film photographer, but if you are submitting your work for serious consideration you MUST understand this has ZERO relevance to a judging panel. The film photography world often feels like it stands for everything except the photography. I shot seven years of stock/portraiture during my career, and I was known for 6×6, black and white negative. In fact, that was what I preferred to shoot and what I used for the bulk of my work.. And I had a digital camera on every single shoot because not having one meant I was leaving work on the table. Work that would have been impossible with anything else. That’s being a professional, not a caricature.
Someone HAS to say this. Someone HAS to start teaching this to up and coming photographers. Film has become the used car salesman of the photography world. A thinly veiled facade of pseudo-cool. A gimmick. (Not all but many.) Process has always been a part of the creative arts. If alternative process is your thing, great, but remember, at the end of your concept lives the end product. Just because you used Rodinal stand development and you printed on Portriga Rapid means those might be your preferred materials of choice, but what stares back at you from the tray is what matters.
Does anyone look back at legends of our industry and single out their material of choice? We lost Douglas Kirkland a few years ago, an absolute gem of a human being who had a monthly assignment from Eastman Kodak for over forty years. Did he use film? Yep. Did he use digital? Yep. When I think about Doug’s contribution to the history of photography, does this even remotely cross my mind? No. I think of the world class work spanning at least six decades. His images are seared into my mind. His materials are not.
Would Capa have used a digital camera if he had the chance?
You bet your ass he would have. I routinely see young photographers with old film cameras, lens caps on of course, shooting like each frame is a Faberge Egg. Precious, monetary, fear-based imagery. Do yourself a favor, keep shooting film, but get yourself a camera that allows you to LEARN and be free. Otherwise, you are holding yourself back. Otherwise, your work won’t ever be in the conversation.
People, I’m a believer in film. I worked for Kodak Professional for nearly five years. I went fully digitally in 1997 only to return to film in the early 2000’s, much to the chagrin of EVERYONE in my professional life who told me I would go out of business were I to return to this “antiquated” technology. I proved them wrong, using film for the last decade plus of my career. But film was not an act. Film was a strategic advantage, at least at the time, and it was partly responsible for the vision of my final product. There is much about film that brings back fond memories. The nervous guarding of the take, not knowing what lived on those negatives. The emergence from a darkroom tray. The glow of a lightbox in the newsroom. Loading a Leica in the dark. But if you want your work to be in the conversation, memories are not enough.
PS: And remember, if you are a consumer or prosumer photographer having fun with your photography, go ahead and talk about film all you want. There is nothing wrong about talking film. It’s the folks who are attempting to become professionals who are using this as a crutch of sorts thinking this will add value to their projects.
Comments 40
Thank you, thank you! So tired of all the talk about film. Shot it for years and loved it but it’s too damn expensive now. And… I’ve seen those YouTube film channels too. I don’t watch them anymore because I would yell at my computer and say WHO CARES THAT YOU ONLY SHOOT FILM?!! It’s the end product that counts.
Author
Those people are just pandering to a base that doesn’t really want to make photographs. They just want to talk about making images, but even more so, talk about the tools they might use if there to actually make pictures.
Film is so “oil and canvas.” Capiche?
Author
Yep.
Amen. One more time for the people in the back!
Hey Dan,
finally someone is writing something about all the proud hipster film photographers out there. I used to shoot film as well, but only because the prices were going up and I was tired of the film vs. digital debate. In the end, it doesn’t matter at all! I am just learning to do everything in a more minimalistic way and to leave the technical side of photography aside. Of course everyone should know the basics, but the gear doesn’t interest me that much. I guess we could talk for hours about this topic, but I’m getting tired of writing and thinking about it. Haha…
Now get to work everyone!
See you next year in Berlin or hopefully in Hamburg?
Wim
Author
Now, get to work. Ain’t that the truth. Film photography, to a certain subset, is really about lifestyle. Clothing, attitude, etc. Not much about the imagery, but that’s true of so many things now. Harmless, but a waste of time for people like me who are having to judge folks.
It depends……Talking about film is pretty hollow and it seems that it has become a vehicle for You Tubers to try and make a living from it. They shoot film because it’s their script. You can tell from the ” left comments below” that the majority of folks hanging onto their every grain, haven’t got a Scooby Doo ( CLUE for those not this side of the pond) about photography. I also think that going on about either film or gear or anything else photo related is a procrastinating tactic. I can speak for myself here; I’ve tried to figure out what equipment, film or digital I need before I even set foot into an idea, and it’s because I’m simply putting off the involvement, because I’m not confident enough to go forth. My photography career is equally divided between film and digital; 1980-2000 film 2000-2024 digital so I feel fairly well licenced to have an opinion. So, is it the journey or the destination? Well, it’s both really. If you shoot professionally, get paid for photographs, there’s no reason at all to shoot film, unless you’re a fine art photographer and it’s your thing, for example, someone like Michael Kenna, who shoots film and prints himself. It’s his MO to work this way. Shooting film shouldn’t get lumped in with the coffee sipping hipsters. Yes, they are the noisiest film tribe, but the quiet ones don’t talk about it. Personally, I think it’s both the journey and the destination, but not always. Dan shooting birds would be bonkers to shoot film, but if you’re into black and white scapes or you just like the whole process, then film is great. There are other aspects to consider too; Time, money and access. You need more time to shoot, process and print film. It’s crazy expensive and ideally you need access to facilities that enable you to print your own work. To the viewer of your work, either in a book or a wall mounted print, it doesn’t matter at all if it’s film or digital, but to the photographer who enjoys the process and hates looking at “captures’ on a screen, then film is the way to go. It’s similar in the movie world; Tarantino hates digital and loves film, Lynch Loves digital, horses for courses. With the advent of AI in both photography and moving pictures, film may well play an important part, for those seeking authenticity, it might be the way to go.
Author
Once it’s scanned, digitized, out goes the authenticity. But it doesn’t matter. This goes to the point I’ve been making for years. YT is mostly people pretending to be photographers.
There’s something I don’t understand about the discussion. If the talk of “film hipsters” about film and its images is so unconstructive, then shouldn’t the talk about “film hipsters” and their images be unconstructive too? And one shouldn’t underestimate the influence of film hipsters on modern photography. Just think of all the beautiful Fujis with cute little wheels to turn, or a Nikon Zf that looks like an FM on steroids. Wouldn’t that be a shame ;-D
Author
Missing the point. That post was about those attempting to break into the professional space. Hipsters aren’t in the professional space. They are operating in the online world. What they do doesn’t matter in the pro space. I have to judge portfolios on a regular basis, and so many people are leading with “I’m a film photographer,” as if it matters to someone like me….a judge.
I would point out that the film hipsters are buying film, which helps the medium survive as an option. M
Author
Again, my post was about those breaking into the professional space.
My part time job as a student was working at a film processing shop. I had all the free film and paper and printing I wanted which may have contributed to them going bankrupt 😀 Even with all that I think I have learned more using digital than film, due to the immediate feedback of digital. Blurry photo? Ship at anchor is moving slightly on the water. Up the ISO to reduce the long exposure time. That being said, my Mum never figured out digital so went back to film and loved taking panoramic travel pics with her inexpensive cameras that had a “panorama” setting. Lovely colours, and nice for her to still be able to take photos as her dementia began.
Author
As a consumer, whatever works is the best option. I love film, but rarely use it due to logistics issues and it’s incredibly wasteful in that regard.
Awesome piece. Love the thinking and agree. Will share.
Hey Dan,
Another great article. I got my first film camera 1985, I think it was a Minolta, honestly can’t remember, but lost it on one of many deployments back then so I said to heck with that and started to use, don’t spit out your tea, a Kodak disc camera so it wouldn’t hurt as bad if it got lost or damaged. Never had another film camera since then, I’ve toyed with the idea of getting a Canon AE1 to scratch that itch, but haven’t pulled the trigger.
Just wondering, did you take the picture of all that film using a film camera? 😉
As always, I enjoy the rides you take us on in these crazy camera days.
Stay safe Dan.
Mike
Author
iPhone most likely…
I wanted to bluster and spit about this being in another post, but I know you speak the truth and you must get hit with these “openers” way more than we all know about.
I can’t even say definitively that it takes longer to get from in camera to critical review stage ( I mean pulling up your scans/captures on a calibrated screen) with film vs digital. I think the time lag would lie only in the film development.
As to a portfolio and/or book lying on the table I agree that the equipment is non-issue.
I feel like I just opened up at a support group for the first time.
What is the digital equivalent of exposing your film to daylight and ruining the sheet or roll?
Author
Accidentally burning a hole in your camera’s digital guts.
Well, I work with watercolor on 100% cotton paper so I’m better than all a ya’s! LOL I also had to put on my glasses to find the % key.
There’s gear, and then there’s art. And it seems the gear heads talk gear, and the artists make art.
Author
That’s right.
Douglas Kirkland! I remember meeting him (and his lovely wife, Francoise) at the Palm Springs Photo Festival. Sat across from them at dinner one night. I may even have a photo of him wearing his snappy panama hat, framing his pale blue eyes. I’ll have to rummage through my files now 🙂
Author
Yes, he had great eyes.
Absolutely agree. “I shot it on film” is no excuse for why your photos suck.
Author
Such a bizarre thing to post with an image. Again, film photography has become as much about lifestyle as anything else.
Lovely thoughts. I’d love to hear and/or watch a conversation between you and Nick Carver (of “film photography” YT fame).
Author
Never gonna happen. I’m not sure who that is, but “film photography” makes me believe we probably don’t have much to discuss. Not that I wouldn’t do it, but having a conversation centered on film or digital or any other tech aspect would crush me.
DM, as you know I still shoot film, but only because I grew up with it, I understand it, I know how to meter for it, I process it myself, and I like you, have a freezer full of film, hanging out in my basement. Plus having worked at commercial film labs and “one hour” photo labs in malls in the 80s, I still process my own film at home.
I am a “prosumer” now. As such, I am lucky that I have the resources to be able to afford film and afford the processing.
When I worked as a “wedding/event” photographer before the birth of digital in the 80s, film was the only choice. So I learned it and got used to it. When I walked away from it to “practice law,” although digital was available, I had no time to learn how to use the equipment, plus I retired from making images for a long time. In 2016, when unpacking from the last move of my house, I found my old Nikon FM with a roll of Tri-X in it from 1997. I processed it and it came out great.
My point is this, you’re right, as a Pro working today, you can’t possibly use film because clients won’t stand for the delay or the possibility that “nothing came out”. Nevertheless, I’m not a Pro and I have the luxury of shooting for myself. Bottom line, as a 50something person with a busy life, I just do not want to learn how to use digital. Film works for me and I know how to use it and know how to use my film cameras.
On those occasions when I do submit images, I submit them without saying they were shot on film. And guess what, people, like you, who judge my work know that it was shot on film without being told! And with that knowledge, these judges then judge my work as an image. Period.
Guess what, sometimes they like the work and say so and sometimes they don’t and tell me why. Isn’t that all anyone can hope for?
In the end, some “film shooters” lead with that statement as if it will give them a leg up OR worse yet, they lead with that in an attempt to excuse what they already know are images that are going to be judged harshly. I can hear it now: “Yeah, but I shot that on film”. Really? Thanks for letting me know, but that does excuse the fact that your composition was awful.
Thanks for (trying) to explain this issue!
Best, David
Author
And you don’t have to do this for a living, so it’s a perfect system for you. That’s what matters. If I was living a different life, I’d most likely be right there with you.
Got my first “real” camera around 1972-73. My first roll of film was Tri-X. Loved the stuff. Developed and printed it in the bathroom. Shot it professionally until the powers that be declared all things will now be color. Not doing work anymore, can shoot whatever I wanna. A year or so ago, I had the urge to shoot film again. Since I had given away about 40 pounds of frozen mixed color/B&W film several years prior, I bought a few fresh rolls of Tri-X, HP5 and some “etc.” stuff I had never heard of. Lots of tanks and reels still around the place but no chemicals so I bought some Rodinal because you can develop anything in it. Even bought a couple of old Nikons despite having even older Nikons (and Canons and Olympuses…Olympii…??) around the house. Went out with my trusty film cameras a couple of times and shot a few frames. Musta spent a grand or more on this experiment. What did I learn? I learned I liked the idea of shooting film more than the reality of shooting film. Those rolls I shot sat there on the shelf for days and days, weeks on end. I dreaded the whole process of developing, washing, drying, clipping and filing. So the film is now in a box (somewhere) undeveloped, unloved.
I could make better prints on my Epson printers from digital files than I ever could in the darkroom from film negatives. At least I could until my last Epson died and went to photo printer hell. I can understand the point of those who have been using film for decades, like it, do it well and have no desire to change their methods. But I just roll my eyes when I see forum or website posts about “film photographer” Bill Clickit and his dozen “film based” photos of people doing nothing. I ‘spose the medium totally is the message to some.
I dunno how I found your site, Daniel. Just stumbled in by dumb luck I guess. I’ll be back.
Author
It’s profitable for them. If you are a “film photographer,” you know there are millions of others out there more concerned about using film than the images being made. A great way to build following. Same for gear reviews. It works. And if people are happy doing that, go for it. But for anyone who is a photographer, it just doesn’t offer anything of value.
Pingback: JSP Visual Week in Review ~ 09.21.24 | JerseyStyle Photography
I shoot both film and digital. Not all but a lot of my personal work is on film and all of my commercial work is on digital. I’ve been photographing for a very long time and have a small darkroom. I truly enjoy the hands on creative experience of the film process’s. Do I brag about it sometimes because of the time consuming hard work and craft that goes into it but I know my audience couldn’t care less. After
reading this post and comments I don’t think I’ll every mention it again.
Author
Ha, your best kept secret moving forward. As I mentioned, talking about film is fine. Using it as your lead while you try to enter the professional industry, is an amateur move.
I started with film in the 70’s, switched to digital in 2004, yet for most long term projects, I still love the look of film and the square image of my Rolleiflex 2.8F. The planar lens has a look to it that I have yet to achieve digitally. Having said that, some projects look better made with digital. It truly depends on the look I am trying to achieve. For my long term documentary project on my father, who survived 8 Nazi forced labor camps, when I was photographing the concentration camps in Poland, for example, the images were too flat from digital. There is more depth, richness and layers creating the photographs with film. To each her own. A good photo is a good photo whether it’s made from a $50 Holga, an old Rolleiflex or a Fujifilm X-T3. I love everything about photographing with film. It’s a bit of magic still but for stills photography on set, of course it’s digital.
I do understand what you’re saying. I have seen some of the worst photography on images made with film posted on social media.
Author
Yep. Film is different, a lifestyle really. And if the logistics work, still a very viable tool. Living where I do, and having my schedule, doesn’t work any longer, but for my personal project it sits waiting.
I would consider myself a prosumer. Having only got into Photography during the last 5 years and grown up in the film era I had this desire to try out film. Not to make money but purely as an escape from digital and to stop myself chimping every 10 seconds and just stay in the damn moment! I’ve bought and sold many of the cheaper film cameras but draw of the Leica M6 wouldn’t go away unfortunately. It’s now my only film camera, I love it and I’ve not had a desire for any other film camera since getting it or plan to sell it. Aesthetically, Ilford HP5 is my choice of stock and I limit myself to no more than 2 rolls per month due to the cost. So very much an alternative to digital but not a replacement by any means.
Author
Love HP5. But that two rolls a month is the real issue. Hard to dig into something with limits. Do both.