Traditional photographers!! Are there any film purists left?

Question

All I here about is digital this and digital that. Aren't there any artists and craftsmen left? Tell me that true photography has not gone the way of the dinosaurs! I even use archaic methods, like cyanotypes for instance. Or Polaroid transfers. You know; stuff with film, a darkroom, time and patience, art and vision. I can use Photoshop well enough, but I think we are losing a valuable art form. Where are all of you????

I also loved using my Holga.

Also the smell of the darkroom.

Answer 1

Thank you for asking this question. Also, thank you to all the people who took the time to respond so articulately.

I shoot digitally now, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the commercial marketplace demands it. This is not to say it is better than traditional - in the case of black and white, I agree that a well exposed negative printed on fibre still beats anything I've seen thus far, however I've seen some impressive digital black and white. I have to admit recently I was fooled: a print I was sure was traditional turned out to be digital.

Additionally, as I shoot mainly color landscape work, I find it easier and more productive to print digitally as a color darkroom is expensive, toxic and wholly impractical inside of my apartment.

I am a professional photographer and have taught photography at a prestigious art school in northern CA.
I consider myself a very good digital printer, using ICC profiles and a lot of adjustment layering on each image. I find that it takes at least as long (if not longer) to render a perfect digital print as it did a darkroom print, the difference being I can save the file and reprint the same image later, without starting over. Also, I can do things digitally I cannot do in the darkroom. For example, I can dodge and burn numerous areas of the image digitally, while in the darkroom, I am limited by what i can do with two hands in the amount of time the paper is exposing. (This applies even when I stop down and increase the time-you can only be in so many places at once and as I tend to print large images I have found that doding can be difficult.) Because the file can be saved in layers, in the long run it does save time. Also, one can print on watercolor paper, canvas and transparency to push the boundaries of digital printing. I recently printed images to the size of a 35mm slide on transparency, mounted them into slide mounts and made polaroid transfers from digital source images. I have also started to make mutli-media images from canvas prints. They are still photographs at their heart.

Also, just because one is using a digital camera, the same rules apply. Filters are still required, especially our friend the polarizer, the red, green and yellow (to say the least!) black and white filters. One still must compose with care and THINK about what one is attempting to communicate with the image. Previsualization, metering and exposure still count. Somehow people think its easier with a digital camera, but they are just fooling themselves. Taking a properly exposed image is just as hard as it always was.

If one wants to continue shooting with film, I think you need to learn to make your own. This is not as hard as it sounds, just takes time and patience and a whole lot of chemistry. As Kodak and the other companies phase out film (Kodak expects to stop making film in 5 years and has already ceased to produce black and white paper) there are a number of books out there that tell you how to do it. That, or seriously stock up. I can honestly say I have a refrigerator full of film and paper, and I expect to die without having used it. What i will do, is continue to combine techniques of digital with traditional practice for cyanotypes, blue/brown prints and polaroid transfers. As one of the responders pointed out, the camera did not replace painting nor will digitial completely replace traditional. There will come a point of balance, and it will be the artists like us, who push the limits and ask the questions who get the medium there.

Peace, out.

Answer 2

I loved my time in the darkroom. Some people taught me to get deeply into and treasure the peculiar alchemy of darkroom processes. But I don't have access to a full darkroom now. I am content to shoot digitally (and work in photoshop if absolutely necessary) because it is what's available to me now.

The darkroom takes your head a totally different place. I used to shoot anything on B & W film, and go into the darkroom and watch the wonders unfold. I sort of miss that. But I can't totally frag digital. The ethic and the place it takes your head is different. It just takes some adjusting.

I treasured shooting with a Holga plastic camera a friend gave me, and seeing the image fade to black around the edges, a vignette created inadvertently by technical limitations of the camera. As a photo junkie, that was beautiful to me. I think there are similar limitations to digital, and you have to learn to treasure those flaws of shortcomings which are totally unique to digital. Maybe all the crummy digital flash hot spots, pixel artifacting... I mean these things when they occur naturally without a filter assist from Photoshop.

(I like to use Photoshop to make a photo clear and visible, to bring life to whatever is there. I don't like to use it to turn a snapshot into a duotone, with fake art damage. that's depressing to me, trying to polish a turd, as they say.)

Answer 3

In response to the digital revolution in photography I am reminded of a quote by Ansel Adams," I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -- meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching -- there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster."
Digital photography exponentially has increased the amount of superficial images ten fold. But fear not, there are lots of people who still practice silver processes have you not gone to http://www.alternativephotography.com or newdags.com.
But in response to the idea that digital photography is easy, to truly make a good digital print, it does take a great deal of time, though the artists hand may be more removed from the processes, the mind is not, and it is the artist mind, their vision which is far more important than the hand.

Answer 4

I still have my first Pentax ME Super that I used all through high school and college, needs the wind lever tweeked and I could still use it...I've been shooting the past few years with a Nikon N80. I shoot both color and black and white depending on the subject. I haven't had access to a darkroom in eons so many rolls I just have proof sheets printed of in hopes of a day when I can print them myself. There's no feeling quite like watching the image appear on a sheet of paper while you are smelling the photo chemicals, oh I really miss it now. My friends joke about when I die how many rolls of undeveloped film they will inherit! I would love to get a medium format camera...also have a few ideas of putting some of my images into book form. So nice to know others out there still understand that the greatest satisfaction comes from using your wit and skill to set up the photo, choosing film, paper, developing time etc. and not just in the doctoring of a "point and shoot" image.

Answer 5

Honestly, I think there is room for both. Many thought that painting portraits and landscapes would disappear with the invention of...you guessed it, the FILM camera. Those art forms are still alive and well.
Different things are accomplished with both mediums (film and digital), and I think this is to the good. Besides, the final image is the thing, and nothing will give you a good one except talent...whether it be in the dark room or at the keyboard.

Just an after thought here. I miss the smell of a dark room and the isolation of the enlarger.

Answer 6

Film has become more expensive and unreliable. The future of film looks bleak as the technology of digital unfolds.

Even purists of a year ago are starting to turn, primarily because of the lack of processing facilities and the abundance of film.

Digital is WYSIWYG from the start, even with Point and Soot cameras. Why waste money on film, when you can take hundreds of high quality shots... cull the best and trash the rest.

All for the same $ investment in the equipt. Remember... quality of lens and number of MP is the best for digital.

Answer 7

Some of us are still here. I do all of my B&W photography on film, that I process myself in a home darkroom. Digital has not yet surpassed film in this area, IMHO. I have to admit I do use digital for my color work, but most of that is wedding photography, and I shoot in RAW format, which is digitals version of a negative. But I have to agree with you, that having a firm understanding of the processes involved with traditional film & its processing has greatly enhanced my digital results. When I select the dodge or burn tool, I know were the name comes from, and why

Answer 8

I'm still hoarding a freezer full of Tech-Pan. I even have a few rolls of Scotch 1000 left. Yeah, I love the darkroom, but there are certain things I love digital for. It is much cheaper to make enlarged negs digitally. Digital is also great for snapshots. My biggest fear is the price of film going through the roof. Most of my favorites are gone anyway. Well, at least they still make Tri-X, and even if film disappears, it is easy to make your own paper for silver, platinum, gum, etc printing.

Answer 9

And I thought I was the last remaining film dinosaur left... ha! Yes, I always refer to myself as an old "fossil" for using my film cameras (yes, two Nikon N80, and two Nikon F5). Occasionally I also hand color Black and White prints with oil paints and people don't understand that I enjoy doing this (as opposed to just using color film OR a digital camera).

Yes, digital is just another way of doing the same thing (a new medium) we do but nothing beats the dynamic range of film, and the quality of image detail in shadows and in highlights...! Yes, I'm also tired of people repeating things (like parrots) like "film is dead" and "digital is the way of the future..." (Puh-leeeze, will someone say something original for a change!)

Here's a quick short anecdote: A few years ago I was at the zoo with my ladyfriend (who uses a Nikon N80, a very popular and versatile film camera) and I was shooting with one of my N80, too (I own two Nikon N80 and two Nikon F5 cameras) and a loud mouth young man was pestering everyone around him by talking so loud and making a general nuisance of himself, and I was happily ignoring him... until he came up to me and asked, "Hey, what kinda camera ya got?" and I replied, "WHAT camera?" Everyone looked at me and he pointed and said, "Dat one, man" and I said, "Young man, this is not a camera... This is a NIKON!" and I turned my back on him, his girlfriend said, "There, that'll teach ya." The young man said, "Oh yeah, watch this..." and approached me with his little digital toy in his hand and asked, "Hey, why are you still using film, man?" and I looked at him, looked at his "camera" and said in a wry tone of voice, "Look, kid, go home, get a REAL camera, learn to use it and come back and we'll discussed photography all day long, OK? Go get yourself a REAL camera first!" His girlfriend started laughing, my ladyfriend started laughing and little by little everyone else joined in. The wise-a s s kid walked away quietly. My girlfriend was laughing all day long.

Best wishes!

Answer 10

There are still many photographers that use film take Christopher Burkett for instance. He is truly a master at photography and is one of my many favorite photographers.