Saw a post on social media the other day about film and digital photography. It posed a question that I think about often. Essentially, it asked if film photography made you a better photographer. The basic idea was film made you slow down because you had a limited number of shots per roll and it took a lot of time to develop and then print images, which in turn made you think and become a stronger photographer.
At first, this seemed reasonable to me. I mean, I had many students who really had to stop and think when they used film, and thinking is good, right? So, case closed. Film is better. End of discussion. Or is it? Back in the days when film was photography and digital was some weird thing they spent millions on to make really bad special effects, I shot 36 exposure 35mm film. As time progressed, I moved to 12 exposure medium format, and yes, this slowed me down and made me really think. The film was more expensive and I got fewer shots per roll, so it stood to reason I had to make every shot count. After a time, I realized I got one really good shot per roll (that means 1 in 36 when I shot 35mm and 1 in 12 when I moved to medium format). With less shots on a roll, I had to slow down and really experience the moment. I had to be better at what I did because I couldn’t afford to be sloppy. So, case closed. Film is better. End of discussion. Or is it? When I was first learning to create images, I had no idea what I was doing. I had to gain experience, and film made me work at it, so it was a great learning experience. I couldn't be sloppy and really had to focus on image making. But to be honest, it also was very limiting. I was constantly worried that my images would be ruined in processing. I didn't want to experiment with different angles and different lighting conditions because I only had so much money I could spend on film and chemistry. I became stingy with my image making, and that lead to stagnation and frustration. When digital came around, I was free to shoot a thousand shots, changing angles, spending time with one subject, experimenting with all kinds of lighting conditions. So, case closed. Digital is better. End of discussion. Or is it? Digital meant I never had to worry about losing a shot or running out of exposures, But that also made me sloppy. I new I could easily delete any image, I could snap away and get something usable, and my images suffered accordingly. I became a vacation snap shot shooter... less interested in making a statement and more interested in just recording whatever was in front of me. The reality was, I wasn't using digital to its full potential. I had to relearn the art of photography using new tools that changed the way I created images. And that was my failing, not the failing of digital imaging. With digital, I can now afford to take every angle of view, change lenses, experiment with ISO, shutter, and aperture, all without feeling limited. But I have to actually do this, not just shoot away in hopes that something will happen. That's the biggest issue I have with digital photography. It's very ease of use makes it too easy to stop caring about creating images. Those of us who learned with film must relearn image making when turning to digital. It's not the same thing. So, case closed. Digital is better. I mean, film is better. No wait, something is better, isn't it? Not really. Film is film and digital is digital. Both can be magnificent in their own right, but both have their limitations too. I can get students to really think with film, but it takes up so much time. On the other hand, I keep having to get students back on track with digital, but the potential is there to experiment without fear. When you first learn photography, you are sloppy, wanting to take images right away and see what you have. You don't have the experience to realize the pitfalls of being sloppy, so digital photography can become a hindrance. You need to learn control, and film gives you that, but it also limits your experimentation and creativity, the very thing digital image making provides. If you can’t take control of the experience, you’re like a rocket with no guidance system — all power but no direction. Film makes you slow down, and slowing down gives you a great guidance system, but, at least for me, I feel I'm missing out somehow. I just can't do everything I want to try to do. Digital gives me the power to experiment and helps me feel like I'm not missing a great shot somewhere, but it doesn't provide the best guidance system when doing so. I need to make that happen. In the end, you need experience. Experience is what guides us to be better photographers... not film, not digital, not cameras or lenses or darkrooms or software or whatever else we come across. With experience, we create our guidance system, ant that is what improves our photography. So, film is better and digital is better... but experience is best. Case closed.
0 Comments
|
fotostufphotographic illuminations Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|