Hacker News Reader

Comment by photigragraphy | Hacker News Reader

As a 'millennial' hobby photographer that enjoys working with film cameras this is great news! However I find some of these comments disheartening.

There is a lot of discussion of the merits of film versus digital capture which really isn't the point or why someone would necessarily choose to shoot film today. Much like how a better camera doesn't automatically take better photos the same goes with the film vs digital debate. A camera, and film/digital sensor, is a tool that is used accomplish an ends (capturing an image). One tool might be easier to use or have more control or some other quality of preference. Similarly, a given film might subjectively have a preferred color palette or a sensor have more flexibility. I shoot film because it requires me to slow down and think about each shot; I can't fallback on "guess and check" for exposure or composition.

Another thing to note is that much of the film market (both pro and consumer) have stabilized in recent years. Kodak (also Kodak Alaris) and the other manufacturers have adapted to be able to meet the lower demand of a niche market. A great example of this is Ilford.

Anyway, I am just excited to have an excuse to shoot some slides this year!

View on HN

The fallacy is in the belief that "photography" is solely defined by the simple act of capturing an accurate representation of reality.

Optimizing for just this aspect ignores the fact that perhaps i don't want to use photoshop to manip an image because i can get more desirable results organically using chemicals and my hands rather than a mouse. Photography is an art for many. It may be easy to mimic the results with digital editing, but it is much more difficult to discover new and unique things.

For example, ML can mimic existing work:

https://qz.com/495614/computers-can-now-paint-like-van-gogh-...

But ML is not a painter that will produce substantially meaningful, original work.

>The fallacy is in the belief that "photography" is solely defined by the simple act of capturing an accurate representation of reality.

I wish I could upvote you twice. I never understand this mentality. And then on the same side people love the ultra-generic over-saturated tone-mapped HDR with 10-stop ND filter of a creek stuff you see on the explore page of Flickr every day. It's probably too much to ask of people who aren't photographers though. I can't blame people for thinking this way when the entire camera upgrade cycle is based on always more resolution and color accuracy. It's easier for companies to sell cameras this way.

One thing that film gives me is a physical representation of reality as light bounced off of it at the time of me pressing the shutter.

This, for me, is an act of alchemy, a bit of magic, which brings a special kind of awe and changes my attitude to the scene, to the moment I am taking the photo, and thus changes the outcome.

I rarely shoot film, but when I do, it feels special.

it's funny that that has become more special than transmogrifying reality into an ethereal form represented by numbers, stored by manipulating electricity, and recreated anywhere in the world by transforming electricity into light

Electricity is pretty magical too, if you stop to think about it. Most things are pretty magical, in a way, if you really think about them.

I agree. And yet, the molecules in the film emulsion get reconfigured directly by the light emitted by reality and focused by the lens. It's direct, physical, embedded in the material structure, testimony of what once was. A physical manifestation of one's experience.

Light-sensitive transistors to electricity to software to memory feels much more ephemeral. Not less magic, but less al-chemical.

>I shoot film because it requires me to slow down and think about each shot; I can't fallback on "guess and check" for exposure or composition.

If this is a common sentiment then here's an idea for a product: a digital camera that donates $1 to the red cross for every picture you take, charged to your bank account. Not only would it restore this "restraint", it would help people in need while also removing the usage of chemicals that are bad for health and environment.

It would need to also not let you see your photos for somewhere between 1 and 7 days, take SD cards no larger than 64 Mb, and break when X-rayed in airport security.

That all said, I agree with the op.

Also, a small chance that you end up with 24 of someone else's photos.

I thought this comment was funny but would like to point out that X ray machines won't fog film now. You'll need to hand check >=800ISO film though

That's true for carry on luggage, but checked luggage (I've learned) still fogs.

> it would help people in need while also removing the usage of chemicals that are bad for health and environment.

Because manufacturing digital cameras doesn't involve chemicals that are bad for health and environment...

Yeah I'm sure that would fly off the shelves...

What can never be represented digitally is that intense feeling, when you see your picture come to life in the developer fluid in a lab. It's the feeling of controlling the whole process from taking the picture, developing the film, creating the prints and see the final represenation developing itself on baryte paper. For me that's still pretty intistinguishable from magic.

  I shoot film because it requires me to slow down and think about each shot

On a related note: I think there's actually a huge advantage to fixed focal lenses. They slow you down!

They force you to really engage with the picture you intend to take. You can't just zoom in on your motive and snap away and I always thought that's a good thing.

Take comfort in the fact that most of the people poo-pooing film here aren't actually serious photographers and have little or no experience with the nature of film photography.

I managed a full-service film lab back in the early 90s. C-41 neg, E-6 chrome, enlargements, copy prints/negs/slides, everything (we didn't do K-14, but just about everything else). We processed several hundred rolls a day, and I personally shot 10-15 rolls a week (we got film at cost, and processing was free).

So, yeah, I have quite a lot of experience with the nature of film photography.

Once the first decent DSLRs appeared on the market, I switched and never looked back.

All of that, and you can't understand why someone might want to go back and use the old medium?

Oh, I understand why someone might want to do it, in the same way that someone might want to, say, weave cloth by hand -- as an interesting hobby.

I was objecting to the implied snobbery in the OP, e.g. "if you actually knew what you were doing, you'd want to shoot film for everything".

Yes, I do know what I'm doing, and no, I don't want to shoot film. Neither do the vast majority of working professional photographers (I'm not one, myself, but I know a fair number of them). Digital has become better in just about every respect you can name. Yes, you can find the occasional art photographer who still shoots film, but there aren't many of them.

The film guys are exactly like the vinyl record guys -- they're basing their preference on factors other than quantifiable objective data.

I should add that no one is suggesting professional photographers with throughput requirements should switch to film. Digital makes life a lot easier in many ways for under-pressure professionals. The only people who will shoot film these days are art photographers looking for either film textures or the way film alters their creative process, and amateur enthusiasts who enjoy shooting film mostly for process reasons. That's no different than a lot of other hobbies. (Why would you drive a vintage sports car, anyway? They're expensive, break down, and can't haul groceries for crap. By quantifiable objective data, they're terrible cars.)

I'm not a professional photographer, but a fairly serious amateur - I broke 10k photos/year at peak, and have been published and done minor gallery shows. I'll shoot a few rolls of film a year, entirely for fun. I enjoy the process, and use it to impose restrictions on myself. (The last time I shot film, I was with a friend who was modeling for me. I told her we had 36 photos available, and that was that. It really made us think, rather than just blowing through 10x that many because we could.) If I need to shoot volume, or use studio lighting, or work in any sort of difficult lighting conditions, I'll use digital, absolutely.

It's quite possible to shoot both digital and film, for different reasons, and not just be a pretentious hipster who doesn't care about "quantifiable objective data".

There so, so is much more to a good photo (art) than quantifiable objective data. IQ is only one component of a good photo, and even IQ is subjective because it is impossible to design a lens that is perfect in every aspect because correcting certain abberations can make other ones worse.

That's why I think there is still a place for film. Fidelity doesn't equal quality.

I don't know why you'd want to base your preference for something intended to provoke an emotional reaction on "quantifiable objective data". That's like saying I shouldn't love my wife because there are other women who are thinner.

Nobody is saying "If you actually knew what you were doing, you'd want to shoot film for everything." Someone is, in fact, saying "The only reason to shoot film is because you're a pretentious hipster". Who's being judgmental here?

"Nobody is saying "If you actually knew what you were doing, you'd want to shoot film for everything." "

Well, except for the original poster to whom I was replying. That's a pretty good paraphrase of what he said.

And likewise, "The only reason to shoot film is because you're a pretentious hipster" is a pretty good paraphrase for your response.

And I was the OP. I know what I said, and you paraphrased it terribly. If I thought people should shoot film for everything, I'd do it myself. Instead, film is maybe 2-3% of my output.

If we're talking about art and the way we experience art, "factors other than quantifiable objective data" are pretty standard fare.

Your comment echoes my own sentiments.

I've been shooting for almost 25 years, and invested lots of money into 35mm cameras and lenses. To replace my equipment with digital equivalents would cost many thousands of dollars. Also, I feel like film photography requires one to slow down and think more while shooting, a benefit that isn't readily apparent to every user, but (for me) results in much better photographs.

I've been shooting for almost 25 years, and invested lots of money into 35mm cameras and lenses. To replace my equipment with digital equivalents would cost many thousands of dollars.

I feel compelled to point out for passers by that this is not really completely true: very few 35mm lens formats are wholly incompatible with modern digital bodies, and most support graceful degradation for things like autofocus. However, the crushing truth is that older optics are often insufficient for modern digital full frame sensors. A normal f/1.8 50mm plastic-fantastic Canon lens will give you sharper resolving power 90% of the time than an older equivalent, and only costs $100. Sure, you lose something in bokeh, but that's often irrelevant. Also, there are many compelling technologies that have emerged in lenses recently that are very useful for realistic shooting scenarios: stronger autofocus, quieter operation, better anti-flare coatings, lighter construction, superior per-image documentation (eg. specific zoom lens position recording in EXIF), ability to immediately shift between a far broader range of sensitivities than film and shoot confidently in near-dark, etc. You get none of that staying still, even though the benefits of equipment familiarity should never be understated. Where film does shine is resolution with good optics and larger (>35mm) formats, and dynamic range (though this will come under threat soon, and cannot match multi-exposure HDR).

All of these things are true, but to get good quality glass for a new digital camera would cost much more than I have to spend. I can also get very high quality glass for obsolete cameras for next to nothing.

I'm not a film apologist - digital is awesome, and for most use cases, superior. If I were a working photographer, I'd definitely be shooting digital. For artistic photography though, on a hobbyist level, I'm fine with film. When I need a digital camera, I have a pretty decent sensor built into my phone that I can use.

I don't understand why you can't use old glass on a new digital body?

The only 'problem' is that the smaller sensor means that the old glass is effectively longer. In practice it means that some of the old glass gives beautiful results because you are only using the centre part of the lens, resulting in less distortion.

You can sometimes use old glass, but there are a lot of downsides. A lot of modern cameras put image stabilization in the lens. Old lenses can't autofocus, and that is crippling on some cameras. Also some meters and sensors don't necessarily work with the old lenses.

> I don't understand why you can't use old glass on a new digital body?

While certain of the new digital bodies are compatible with certain older film bodies and can use the same lenses and accessories, that's not universally the case, AFAIK.

As a rule, new DSLRs by major manufacturers (Canon, Nikon) can use the old lenses of the brand. Not always all of them, but an impressive amount of them.

Even the newest Nikon cameras can use F-mount lenses from 1959. Some of the metering modes are not available in some or all cameras. Some cheaper digital cameras cannot autofocus with lenses that don't have built-in autofocus motor.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

Canon DSLRs can use old EF lenses (since 1987).

Olympus OM lenses (since 1972) can be mounted to Olympus (and other) Four Thirds cameras using an adapter.

Also, ancient M42 lenses (since 1949) can be connected to most modern DSLRs using adapters.

> Some cheaper digital cameras cannot autofocus with lenses that don't have built-in autofocus motor.

Unless the camera system had autofocus in the body (which, as far as I've been experienced with, really only is medium format bodies) the lens always has had autofocus. Canon, Nikon etc.

The problem is that a lot of adapters for old lenses only feed mechanical (if even) instructions to the lens, for aperture and the like, and don't send over autofocus instructions.

Luckily manual focus will work just fine.

Nikon lenses have only had autofocus motors since about ~2000 (which is not a long time ago in terms of lenses).

Nikon's compatibility with old lenses is quite stunning. They did one major change to their mount in the 70s but every mid-range or highrr camera since then has had 100% compatibility with any lens. Metering, aperture control, everything. The AF system still works too. You just have to use your hand as the AF motor and the camera will give you an indication when it thinks focus is correct.

Nikon AF lenses (which came to market in 1986) don't have built-in autofocus motor; the motor is in the camera body. Those days they were the film cameras, but also modern DSLR cameras have the motor (with the exception of cheapest consumer DLRs, i.e. the D3000 and D5000 series).

On the flip-side, as a person who has been doing cinematography for some time and has spent thousands on equipment over the years, I can say I would have never got into photography and cinematography if it wasn't digital.

Nothing about the experience of developing film sounds interesting to me.

Would you mind sharing other subtle nuances of shoot on film vs digital?

Digital is WAAAY easier to get started on, no doubt. It's also much easier to learn the basics of composition and exposure. Unbelievably so! You can "develop" your images in microseconds.

With film you have to supplement a lot of what's achievable in digital via guessing and checking with careful thought. You also have many fewer opportunities to get the shot right before you exhaust your film and probably blow the moment replacing it.

This makes film into a forcing function to perform excellent technique and to pre-visualize your shot. This creates better technique.

It's also nice that film has a very high effective resolution (when drum scanned), that film grain is a favorable aesthetic right now (it was usually considered ugly before digital), and that film has a logarithmic response to light meaning that it can handle a wider dynamic range than digital.

The logarithmic response to light is the first non-emotional benefit to film photography I have seen in these discussions. Thanks for pointing that out.

What's wrong with emotional benefits? I cherish the fact that I experience emotions and the richness they bring to my life.

Emotional benefits don't really help me understand the difference between film and digital. It seems too anecdotal of an experience for me to take it seriously. Might be me though...

For better and worse, photography is largely an artistic endeavor. Finding emotional appeal is a big part of that.

On the other hand, scientific imaging is definitely something where non-emotional performance matters and I doubt people use film for any kind of scientific work these days.

There's nothing wrong with emotional benefits or discussing them, this is just notable as an objective difference in the mediums.

> film has a logarithmic response to light meaning that it can handle a wider dynamic range than digital.

Not sure if that situation still exists in DV but for digital photography that stopped being true a long time ago (the balance started shifting almost 10 years ago), most digital sensors support more stops than even the best brands of film.

I went and looked it up to be sure and yeah, looks like empirically I'm off base with the dynamic range question.

That said, subjectively I still feel that way. It might have something to do with digital noise and how the experience of actually witnessing different exposures feels between the two media.

I can appreciate where you're coming from.

I see a lot of photographers starting out not learning the craft. Some of the convenience of digital can reinforce bad habits. You can shoot a thousand photos in a few minutes, switching between a bunch of modes and options that you don't truly understand, and inevitably get a few decent photos. This isn't a fault of digital, it's just human behavior. I think for this reason, a lot of schools are still using film when teaching photography.

As an artist, I have a use for both digital and film photography. There's something about the way film feels, and the way the process of shooting film makes me feel, that makes me enjoy it so much more. My old Pentax cameras are very substantial, physical objects. The shutter opens and closes, and you can feel it - it's a physical act. Digital cameras don't have the same physicality about them. I still use both digital and film, they each have their own advantages to me and have their place.

Speaking as someone who did lots of film photography over many years. I was actually pretty interested in cinematography back when I was school but the the technical/financial hurdles just turned me off. Super-8 or early videocams with huge battery backs. What I would have given for even a small P&S or cameraphone of today.

Darkroom work was rewarding in its own way (for B&W). But, honestly, it was always a means to an end. I knew people who would spend all day making the perfect print. I never had that kind of patience.

There's definitely a balance. Smartphones have opened a huge world of possibilities that were otherwise inaccessible. I'm amazed that people are shooting feature films on smartphones - that's truly exciting!

I'm not one for strong opinions either way, I think there's a place for film photography and also for digital, and I like both.

I enjoy B&W film photography as a hobby. I do not think I would enjoy any sort of film cinematography, due to the larger scale. A 24 frame roll of photo film is one thing but a reel of cinema film is another!

" I shoot film because it requires me to slow down and think about each shot; I can't fallback on "guess and check" for exposure or composition."

Funny, I shoot film on my Minolta X700 (for over 25 years) because I DON'T have to slow down. What I see in my viewfinder is exactly what I'm going to see on film. The joys of real SLR versus Digital SLR. Your camera screen is not reliable for color reproduction - raw optics are.

Film doesn't necessarily match the color response of the eye any more than digital sensors do. Fujifilm's Velvia film was renowned for extreme saturation, not accurate color reproduction. And optical viewfinders don't take into account exposure length either, so they won't give an accurate view of long exposure shots.

If you shoot raw you can always tweak the color balance in post-production anyway.

"And optical viewfinders don't take into account exposure length either"

The Minolta X700 does do that via a secondary faux-shutter mechanism and a light sensor. If you actually bothered to have a battery installed (which dies after about 8 shots,) the tiny auto-exposure sensor inside would take over and the faux secondary shutter would move out of the way.

The shutter in an X700 is timed electronically and won't work without battery power, a common fault occurs when one tiny capacitor in the timing mechanism fails, preventing the shutter from releasing.

I have no idea what the faux shutter is because the camera had a fairly conventional horizontal fabric shutter. The actual innovatation is with the closed-loop AE mode where the camera will account for a faulty aperture or more importantly, non-TTL flash by measuring light reflected off the film in real time.

"The shutter in an X700 is timed electronically and won't work without battery power"

Wrong. It's a mechanical shutter and the only two things the battery is used for is auto film advance and exposure metering.

Trying to tell me something about a camera I've owned for over 3 decades and have had apart almost as many times is very un-wise.

Most DSLRs I know of use the same mirror and pentaprism arrangement as a traditional SLR. Yes, they often do have an additional digital screen, but I only use that when I'm trying to find a specific shot on the card.

Have you actually tried a modern DSLR?

Yes, and they all pretty much suck. Auto-focusing optics that can't handle a scene because the sensor thinks there's changes in focus from even the slightest noise, poor color reproduction on built-in screens, sensors sensitive to even the slightest jitter of the internal components, shutter roll effects in video, and more. Almost every one of these problems is not happening in an analog SLR camera.

You're moving the goalposts.

1) Autofocus can be turned off if you don't like it.

2) There's no (electronic) "screen" involved when you're looking through the viewfinder of a good digital SLR. It works exactly the same way as the viewfinder on film SLR. Exactly.

3) The same is true with respect to "sensors". Every DSLR I've used lets you shoot in full manual mode. No sensors involved.

4) I'm not sure what "video" has to do with it, since you can't take video on a (still) film SLR anyway.

"Autofocus can be turned off if you don't like it."

Excepting some lenses themselves have one built-in that you cannot disable.

"There's no (electronic) "screen" involved when you're looking through the viewfinder of a good digital SLR"

Tell that to my Sony SLT which has... wait for it... an electronic viewfinder. Oh, and many people find that focusing manually using an EVF is easier than with an OVF because the EVF allows you to magnify an area to clearly see when the subject snaps into sharp focus (assuming no cruddy interpolation,) which is why DSLRs are coming with an electronic viewfinder.

"Every DSLR I've used lets you shoot in full manual mode. No sensors involved."

Is that including the sensor which is required to take the picture?

"I'm not sure what "video" has to do with it, since you can't take video on a (still) film SLR anyway."

What do you think is inside a Super-8 camera (which has still film modes?) The exact operating mechanisms, down to the split prism (well, some used a half-mirrored optic) that you would find in a typical SLR. Oh, and then there's this thing called rapid continuous shot (battery assisted, of course) where you can shoot up to 30 shots per second with my old camera, which means... wait for it... VIDEO SPEED PHOTOGRAPHY.

I'm only a photography dilettante, but I'm a pretty decent golfer who chooses to use older equipment that is arguably less performant because of the emotional connection I feel with what I choose to play (ex: equipment from 15 years ago that I couldn't afford back then). I think that sort of emotional satisfaction shouldn't be understated for our passion pursuits.

It's like a hammer vs an automatic electrical nail driver. Sure, the hammer is an old, primitive, slow, and occasionally painful technology, while the electrical nail driver is modern, convenient, and fast. But sometimes a hammer is the right tool for the job, and it would be a shame if hammers stopped being made.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com