Back To Basics

I've been shooting film lately. Yeah, I know, and I'm not interested in reviving the old “film vs. digital” debate. That one's already old.

The thing that got me thinking about film again was how often I don't do black and white conversions. It's not because I don't like working in black and white – I do – but the fact that I have to create it on the computer. Sure, you get all kinds of options for the conversion, simulating color filters and so on, but it's never the same. The highlights suffer; trying to simulate the shoulder of a film response curve with the linear highlights of digital is troublesome. And the grain! You can “add grain” in Photoshop, but you're just adding noise, and film grain isn't noise – the grain is the picture.

Sometimes I find it regrettable that photography is becoming a sub-dicipline of computer science. Our cameras have more computer power than it took to send men to the moon. In return, we get spectacular technical image quality, but realistically, that's not usually what makes a good photograph. You've got better photographic technology than Ansel Adams used, or Henri Cartier-Bresson, or Alfred Palmer, but most of us aren't making better pictures than they did, and the hand-held computers we use as cameras won't help us do that. They don't stop us, of course, but I began wondering if all that thinking about technology wasn't getting in the way.

What's the first thing I do with a digital camera? Tame it, by shutting off most of the automatic “features.” Predictive multi-point autofocus? Off. Programmed auto-exposure? Off. 1005-pixel 3D color matrix meter with scene recognition system? Really? I'm choosing a shutter speed, not sending a space probe to Mars. Off.

Note surveillance camera in upper left.

So I picked up a used Nikon FM3A – it uses the lenses I've already got. The other obvious choice was an F3, but that one only has one mechanical shutter speed; if I'm going old-school, I'm going all the way. This thing doesn't even need batteries, except for the light meter. It's not even that old – it's the last of the mechanical cameras, anachronistically manufactured in the 21st century, and I like the old-fashioned silver look.

I placed a B&H order for a bunch of Tri-X, some D-76, fixer, stop, and Photo-Flo; a changing bag, thermometer, and a developing reel since my old ones were bent beyond usefulness. Remember Tri-X in D-76? It's all about the look, folks, and without having to strive for it in Photoshop.

Next, I'll pick up a bunch of Kodachrome. Instead of striving for the Kodachrome look in post-processing, I can shoot the real thing! I'm not sure there's any reason to shoot any E-6; it seems like you might as well just use digital at that point. Some folks like Velvia, but I didn't like it then and still don't. Back in the day, I used a lot of Ektachrome 100 Plus Professional, but I'm not sure if there was any reason to use it, except that it was faster to get processed since Kodachrome had to be sent out. That's a pretty lame reason, but hey, I was young.

I must say, the act of photography is pretty enjoyable with a simple camera. A real shutter speed dial, an aperture ring, focus, and that's about it. Nothing else between me and the shot. A real shutter speed dial. I want one of those on my digital SLR.

No, I'm not going to stop shooting digital. Sometimes technical image quality is what you want, not to mention immediate results. Landscapes will continue to be the province of digital. But phooey on the idea that digital is cheaper: a cheap camera you never have to replace; cheap film and chemicals; and hey, I can get a state of the art film scanner for much less than a good digital SLR that will be obsolete in three years (my mediocre scanner will do for now, but it might make me cry with Kodachrome).

Seriously, film isn't dead. Stay tuned.

Comments

[Amie]

I've got the makings of a whole B&W photo lab in my garage I've been DYING to break out. We had started to create it in the garage of our previous home, but when we moved, well, the garage was filled with crap I've yet to dig out. I'm hoping to get that done by maybe next year so that I can get back to shooting film and developing. I miss it. I even miss the smell of the funky chemicals. Truth be told, I think all the chemicals from art classes in college burned out my sniffer, so I'm not so bothered by it all. It's been sooooo long since I've done any developing that I'm rusty. But still, I'm hoping to get back into it...as if I need another hobby.

[Sam Habash]

I have associates that have gone full-board digital and I wonder if they focus more on their kit and processing than on the subjects and being open to documenting what is all around you.

[Rebecca Ore]

Um, you want to buy my Hasselblad? I'd recommend at least getting a old medium format twin lens reflex (I've got a Minolta Autocord that I bought for $20 or so at a flea market and had fixed for another $100.

I've used Diafine as the developer, and will soon be testing to see if it has the advertised shelf life. The other film to check out is Fuji Acros, slower than Tri-X.

Use a digital P&S more than anything else, though.

[Jeremy]

I don't think I'm making the leap to medium format just yet. Stuff gets expensive there pretty quickly, especially the film scanner. (Not doing darkroom printing -- that was by far my least favorite thing about photography.) Plus, there's no MF Kodachrome any more, which is a big downer.

I dunno, maybe next year... one step at a time. :)

[Rebecca Ore]

All my medium format Flickr photos were scanned on a cheap Epson (and, yeah, it probably shows). Just posted one cropped from a shot taken by the Autocord.