When I first started shooting a manual SLR in the early 90′s (which may be around the time you were born or it may be around the time you had a mid-life crisis) I didn’t know a Nikon from a Canon. I knew if it was silver and the len’s came off it was probably from the 70′s and if the prism came off I couldn’t afford it (which is still true today). I didn’t know a lot about the hierarchy of photography equipment and I didn’t care. I learned what I had to learn to get pictures to go from my camera to prints in the wet lab.
When you take first that leap from taking snapshots to a being a “photographer” who shoots photos you are probably at your purest. Everything is fresh and new.
I was amazed at my new skills and there was something magical about the process. Dodging and burning in to compensate for incorrect exposures, pushing film to compensate for poor lighting and solorarizing like Man Ray. I spent a lot of time in the darkroom learning these skills. Now I sit in front of a laptop pushing and pulling sliders around until I get the image to look like I want it, even if I shot it on film. It sucks, I would much rather be in the darkroom, but I don’t have the space or the funds at this point, so for now It’s photoshop. I also shoot digital sometimes. It’s cost effective because I can take 3,000 shitty pictures in a shoot and cherry pick the very best ones and I don’t have to pay for all the film or pay to process but I’ve got thousands of dollars tied up in gear that will be obsolete in 10 years. Where’s the cost effectiveness in that? It’s a fallacy. Not to say that there aren’t benefits to digital because there are some, but financially? Considering the start up costs, the rapid decline in resale value and the comparatively short lifespan of the equipment as well as the maintenance costs I would say cost effectiveness is a bust, even at 9 cents for an 8×10 print. But it’s much faster assumingyou are able to shoot the quality of photo’s that are ready for print out of the memory card. Most of the digital photographers I know (myself included) spend a lot of time fusing over a computer before the photo’s are ready for print, if they get printed at all because lets face it, digital camera’s aren’t that good (compared to what you get for the same money in a film camera today). This horse is dead, but I decided I would kick it for good measure for my first rant so I could get it out of the way.
This is just my opinion after all.
The bottom line is that I shoot film because I enjoy it. I took a break from film a while. I was lured by the lusty promises of RAW formatted pixels and stitched perfect panorama’s but the dead sexy lines of the Brownie Hawkeye Flash that brought me back to film. I was a hold out, but a friend of mine whom I really respect convinced me that digital was the way to go. I had just lost the darkroom equipment I had been saving since I graduated high school when my dad’s house got foreclosed on and my Minolta SRT 201 was stolen from my garage. Buying a Canon 350d with 8.1 Megapixels seemed like a good idea at the time. I had some fun with it and I am proud of the photo’s I have taken with it. But if I had to do it over again I would take the money I spent going digital and bought a 500 c/m and another Minolta SRT (I love Rokkorglass). I probably would still have enough money to outfit another darkroom and buy a lifetime supply of film.
Shooting film through “toy camera’s” has brought me back to that magical place that I could never find with a dSLR. The place I had found 15 years ago in a high school photography lab. Because of the mustang like qualities of toy camera’s every roll of film you process is a new experience. You didn’t exactly see what you took a picture of so you don’t know if it was really in focus and sharp, if there was lense flare, etc…
The thing about fixed focus camera’s like the Holga, Diana, BHF or Vivitar Ultra Wide and Slim is that they force you to take a step closer (but stay back about 3 feet if you want to be in focus, or nearly in focus). Some people stop and stare at you, they may even ask you questions! You might have to talk to someone you don’t know face to face! Human interaction; You might have to form words into sentences even. Twitter that.
Comments
Can’t remember where I read it now, but someone insightfully pointed out that what digital does is shift the “responsibility” for a good/interesting photo to the picture taker. Whereas previously you would select the film for the environment/feel that you wanted, and probably get a lab to develop it, these days you get a digital SLR, and it’s *your* job to choose the palette, and make sure contrast, brightness, etc is what works.
But most people don’t get that. An SLR is a tool for taking a negative, which should have as much detail as possible – this is why a lot of SLR shots come out “flat” I think – because it’s trying to get everything. If you don’t do any further development, shots will be rubbish. Unfortunately, I think that means *more* work than before, as you have to replicate decisions like the richness of film from scratch.
I like digital because it opens up possibilities, but we have to stop seeing the SLR as the end point, and start seeing it as just one of the steps on the way to a final image, and realise how much more time and effort we need to put in as a result.
And at the end of the day, we can never reproduce all the imperfections that toy camera introduce, and which make it all so interesting
It’s interesting you mention that ‘it forces you to step closer’.
There’s something about big plastic cameras the the public love. They embrace you taking photos, whereas with a DSLR they are hesitant. It also makes a difference with something like a TLR, where you aren’t hidden behind the camera: as soon as they see your face, they feel at ease with your photography.
Thank you for the comments!
@scribe: I couldn’t agree more, with digital it seems like what you put into it is what you get out of it. VIewing the file that came out of the camera as a negative is spot on. The art community at large seems to dismiss most digital mediums as art (with the exception of Pop Art). I think they’ll be saming the same attitude photography battled for years establishing itself as a legitimate artform.
@Jo: I don’t get many chances to deal with the public at large here in Virginia. I do get lots of chances to take pictures of swamps, lakes, boats and industry though. I am looking forward to hitting the streets with my Holga and Diana in Italy, France and Dubai later this year. SLR’s in general (film or digi) seem out of place in most situations. Last time I traveled overseas I left my dSLR in my locker. I wish I had my toy camera’s then, I feel way more invisible with them.