Tag Archives: film

In Focus: Maintain Stability (part 2)

commentarylogoLast time we discussed some of the theory behind hand-holding a camera – the increased chances of shake at slower speeds and a rule of thumb for lower limit of shutter speed vs. focal length of the lens (50mm at 1/50th, 200mm at 1/200th etc), and also how raising the ISO will lead to a faster shutter and sharper images in low light. This week we’ll continue to keep things steady and look at the mainstay of camera stability.

The first thing that springs to mind when we think of holding a camera steady is the tripod.  When we first get a camera, a tripod is often the very next piece of equipment we get, if not at the time of camera purchase.  While that inexpensive add-on to the deal is appealing, it is worth resisting.  Find out how you are going to use your camera first.  With modern digital cameras and their low-light capabilities, a tripod is unnecessary.  If after some experience you find yourself gravitating towards, for example, long exposure, macro or landscape photography, a good quality tripod becomes a must-have to keep those images sharp.

The array of different tripods is great, and it can be confusing to determine which is best for your needs.  What to consider?

Stability is most important and seems like a no-brainer as this is the prime characteristic that all tripods are designed to provide, but while you are in store, just compare that cheap afterthought model with one of the higher quality options and you will see that between the spidery legs and plastic head, stability is exactly what the budget version seems to lack.  A rule of thumb I’ve heard for tripod purchase is that because stability is influenced most by mass, a tripod with head should be at least twice the weight of the camera.  This does however seem a little excessive to me as you can always add mass by hanging your bag off it – many good tripods have a fixture for this very purpose.  But do erect a few in-store and compare them for stability.  A load rating of about 8 – 10kg is good for most photographic applications.

Another important characteristic is weight.  Consider carefully how you will be using the tripod.  Will you be part of your kit as you travel?  Will you use it on infrequent occasions?  Good quality alloy tripods tend to be heavier, but if weight is a prime concern, carbon fiber, though much more expensive, could ease your burden considerably.

With most quality tripods, the head is a separate purchase, and like the leg assembly, there are a wide variety of options.  The most popular general-purpose heads are of the ball type – a ball in socket design.  These are small, sturdy, light and offer a wide range of movement.  The load rating for the head should be about the same as that for the legs.

As I mentioned earlier, don’t pick up that cheap tripod with the camera, if you get at least a little serious with your photography you will regret it eventually.  Take your time and see where you interests lead you and if necessary invest in a quality piece of equipment.  Cameras may come and go, but a wise tripod acquisition will last you a long, long time.  Don’t skimp on it.

Next time we’ll round off this series with a look at some other ways to maintain stability.

Leave a comment

Filed under In Focus

In Focus: Creativity Killers

commentarylogoI recently read a short book about creativity and inspiration in photography. It contained some insight about how the author sees the creative process and gave much advice on how as a photographer you can nurture your own, or if you’re like me, as just a regular person who aspires to take better pictures.

Something that really struck me as significant was an interview with a very well known photographer and his views on this issue. Specifically his ‘Top 10′ list of things that kill the creative photographic process. It was just a very small part in the book and there wasn’t any clarification on these points – it was just a list – but I just want to pull out a couple and share my take and thoughts on them. Hopefully something will resonate with you, or at least generate some food for thought. Here we go in descending order:

Creativity Killer #10: Not knowing when to set the camera down.

I used to carry my DSLR everywhere, also, if I didn’t have at least two different lenses with me, I felt uncomfortable. In fact I used to put a lot of pressure on myself to take photos. These days I’ve eschewed digital for a rather unwieldy and inconvenient film camera and unless I have something particular in mind or a potentially interesting place to go, it’s much more comfortable to leave it at home. I’ve found this has taken a lot off my mind and I’m free to actually enjoy my photography when I choose, and under no self-pressure.

Creativity Killer #7: Impatiently press the shutter.

A habit exacerbated by the age of the digital camera. It’s so easy to snap and move on, or fire off a few and sort them out later. Probably the single biggest benefit of spending time behind a film camera is that I can’t see my results so I am literally forced to view my frame much more carefully before I hit that shutter. For those of you who, like myself, have a challenge with self discipline at times, this is of undeniable benefit. But whatever medium you shoot, next time you’re out spend a little more time with the camera at your eye evaluating your compositional options before actuating that shutter.

Creativity Killer #2: Own and carry expensive gear.

This is perhaps the most controversial item on the list, and very illuminating being ranked so high (or even ranked at all) by an internationally renowned photographer. It’s also prudent to keep in mind that the context here is creativity. Further, I see the context as ‘creativity on the street’ so to speak, that is, not specialized photographic areas such as sports or action where creativity takes a back seat to the ability to shoot 8 frames per second from a distance (which does require expensive gear). We’re talking about everyday, walk-around-style photography – a style which encompasses the vast majority of people who carry a camera. This is a complex topic with many different supporting arguments so I’ll keep it brief. Expensive gear is your bark, the image is your bite. Needless to say, there are many extremely fierce-looking but toothless photographers prowling the streets.  It’s so easy for budding (and experienced!) photographers to think something like “My photos would be better if I just had that camera.” This way of thinking will stifle your creativity more effectively than just about anything else. Slap yourself upside the head and get out there and work at taking better pictures with the gear you’ve got. I know I had to. I’m like a cracked record on this issue, but not enough people say it – your gear has nothing to do with the creativity in, and quality of, your images.

If you think these things don’t apply to you, or you view your own ability as above average (or other people tell you it is), take note of the Creativity Killer #4: Become talented and take yourself very seriously.

If you are interested in developing your photography, I highly recommend picking up a copy of this book – actually a book in two parts. To find it, google ‘The Inspired Eye by David duChemin’. It’s very cheap and available to purchase and download online. The ‘Top 10 Creativity Killers’ were part of duChemin’s interview with photographer Chris Orwig.

You can work on developing your creativity with the Seoul Photo Club on Flickr.

by Aaron Raisey

Leave a comment

Filed under In Focus

In Focus: The Right Camera

commentarylogoSo you want to buy a camera? Or perhaps you’re wondering if it is the right time to upgrade or try something new? A casual walk through any ‘camera central’ area, like Namdaemun or Chungmuro in Seoul, will reveal a mind-boggling and confusing array of choices. Which choice is right for you?

Well, the short and easy answer to that question is “It depends.” As frustratingly correct as that answer is, it doesn’t help us at all.  Depends on what?  It depends on you of course – the reasons you want to buy a camera.

I’m deliberately being a little evasive here to make the point that before you invest a possibly significant amount of money into an image capture device, it’s a good idea to examine exactly why you want it, and where you see yourself going with it.

The usual thought process that goes into buying a camera is “Which camera takes the best pictures?” The answer is that the camera is in no way responsible for taking good pictures, it’s your ability to wield it that determines the quality of the images you will produce. What that bewildering variety of cameras offer you aren’t varying levels of picture quality, but different options to meet your needs or help you reach your creative ends.  As I mentioned before and stress now, it is actually the ’why’ that should be the major influence in your decision.

The camera that probably addresses most of the reasons you might want one is the entry level DSLR, and this would be my recommendation for almost anyone.  Travel snaps? Check. Sure, it’s bigger than a Point & Shoot – you can’t put it in your pocket – but very compact for what it is and not heavy. Creative ability? Check. Having the option to manually control the aperture or shutter speed enables you to employ some advanced techniques if you want to pursue the development of your photography. Use different lenses? Check. To leverage that creative ability, there are a wide variety of interchangeable lenses available. All-round performance? Check. There is very little to limit you in your picture-taking. Being digital to boot means that getting those great pics to family and friends is very easy.

Of course your budget is also a crucial factor in determining what camera you will eventually purchase, and while entry level DSLRs are not all that expensive, there are cheaper options in the form of P&S cameras.  They are unobtrusive, fit in your pocket and despite not offering as many creative options, will still take great pictures.  This brings me to my final point.

It’s important to remember that no camera can be all things to all people, and every camera has limitations in one way or another.  Personally, I shoot with a totally manual, 20+ year old medium format film camera and an iPhone.  Each has severe disabilities but getting to know each and working with their limitations means I can go a long way to getting the best from them and produce images from either that in no way makes those limitations apparent.  Likewise, whatever kind camera you see as filling your needs will allow you to produce great images if used effectively – you are the determining factor in the quality of your photographs, not that camera.

by Aaron Raisey

Leave a comment

Filed under In Focus

In Focus: The Zone System

commentarylogoWe could take this to mean one of several different things, but the particular ‘zone’ I want to touch on this week is the ‘Zone System.’ Those who have been around photography for a few years will probably have at least heard of it, if not actually use it on occasion.

The Zone System is simple in theory but very comprehensive when practiced in it’s fullest form, so I’m only going to discuss it briefly here as it is very useful to be at least aware of it.

First, a bit of background.  The Zone System was developed by photographers Ansel Adams and Fred Archer in the early 1940s and is more or less a formalization of Adams’ own well established Black & White photographic workflow.  As I alluded to, the full Zone System encompasses the entire process from pre-shoot visualization of the finished product right through to realization of that vision in print.  But what we will address here is the core of the system – the zones themselves – and how we might use them in basic form. This is a very limited explanation and I’m assuming you’re familiar with the principles of basic exposure.

The Zone System divides the total range of brightness into eleven steps referred to as ‘Zones.’  From Zone 0 (total black), through Zones I, II, III, IV and up to Zone X (ten – solid white), each is separated by one stop of exposure.  Most images won’t span all zones of course.  A low contrast subject might only span two to four zones of brightness, while a bright sunny day may well yield an image that spans eight or more zones – from black shadows to reflected sunlight.

The key to utilizing the Zone System is engaging in a bit of pre-shoot visualization and knowing into which zone of brightness you want to place a specific area, or your particular vision of the final image.

But how do we know into what zones the image falls prior to shooting?  Your cameras’ metering is preset to place whatever light it measures into Zone V (five) – exactly halfway between solid black and total white (or on 18% gray for the more technically minded).  Switch to spot metering for greater accuracy and take an exposure reading from some part of your subject, the camera will automatically set the exposure so the metered area falls on Zone V – no matter how dark or bright it might actually be, the camera will expose to place it in Zone V.  Now visualize exactly how bright or dark you want this area – into what zone you want it to fall – and manually adjust the exposure accordingly.

For example, you can use the Zone System to easily shoot a silhouette.  Spot meter off the subject to be silhouetted (Zone V) and decrease the exposure by four or five stops – placing the subject into Zone 0 or I for an ideal black silhouette.  Hopefully you can imagine the creative possibilities available when you take back a bit of the exposure control from the camera.

There are some things to keep in mind when using the ‘Zone’ concept.

Don’t forget about the other effects of adjusting exposure – changing the aperture will alter your depth of field and increasing exposure could introduce camera shake or motion blur.

Also, all zones move together. If you expose to place that bright spot in Zone IV, for example, most of the picture will be crushed into darker zones (though this maybe ok if that’s your creative end).

The extremes yield little to nothing worthwhile.  Zones 0, I, IX and X retain no appreciable textural detail so should normally be avoided.  In fact, the general rule of thumb for negative and digital capture is to place the darkest areas in Zone III or IV and develop (or post-process) to place the highlights.

Despite being developed for B&W film, the concept can equally be applied in all areas of photography. If you can get your head around the Zone System it’s a great road to gaining a greater understanding and appreciation of exposure, becoming another tool in your creative photographic arsenal.

Ansel Adams is recognized as one of the greatest ever landscape photographers and I highly recommend further reading on the subject, specifically Adams’ book ‘The Negative’ in which the Zone System is explained in greater detail.

by Aaron Raisey

Leave a comment

Filed under In Focus

In Focus: Medium Format as a Wake-up Call

commentarylogoAbout a month or so ago, I decided to try something new to me in photography: medium format film. This week I’d like to discuss what medium format is, and the effect that the switch back to film after a long time shooting digital has had on my photography.

Medium format is a larger film than the ubiquitous 35mm we’re all familiar with. It comes in various flavors (eg. 645 and 6×7 among others), but they all share one side of 6cm in length and use the same “120″ size film. Medium format has been around since the beginning of last century and has been first choice for many areas of professional photography where the very best quality prints are essential.

These days though, affordable high-resolution digital cameras have all but supplanted medium format in the more dynamic kinds of professional capture such as at weddings, where digitals adaptability and flexibility give it a distinct advantage. However, medium format film is still very popular in areas of pro photography where you have time and/or control over the conditions such as shooting landscape or in the studio, and also with those to whom photography is art to be viewed in a gallery.

But more important than what medium format actually is, is the effect the switch to film has had as to how I personally practice my photography.

On the down-side, the camera shares the issue typical with most film cameras – once the film is in you can’t change it. In addition, it’s big, heavy and doesn’t exactly get out of the way of your photography. The camera I use is totally manual – I have to set the aperture, shutter speed and focus manually – meaning off-the-cuff opportunistic shots are almost totally out of the question. Also a roll of film is about three times more expensive than 35mm and only yields 10 frames.

There is a flip-side to this. Once the shutter fires, I can’t take it back, I can’t immediately see what I’ve got, and there is a definite price tag on each shot. This is the flip-side? It is. As it turns out, this has been of real benefit to my photography. It has forced me to think about each shot much more carefully than when shooting digital.

With a DSLR you are free to take multiple pictures – different compositions, choices of aperture and exposure, etc. – but with medium format I have to consider every single shot in much more detail. I’m not free to just fire away carte-blanche, choose the best and delete the rest. I typically get one chance only to get the best photograph and I try to make quite sure I’m going to get it. Sure, I’m not as productive, but my percentage of keepers has increased two-fold over what I was getting with my DSLR.

This isn’t a film vs. digital issue, it’s all about attitude and approach. Shooting film, especially a more expensive format like medium format, forces close attention on technique – your choice of aperture, focal point and especially composition. I highly recommend grabbing a film camera once in a while as a wake-up call.

Leave a comment

Filed under In Focus

In Focus: Develop Relationships

commentarylogoOn Saturday evening I had dinner with several friends that included a couple of fellow Seoul Photo Club members. These guys were photographers with much more experience than I, with time spent behind cameras all over Asia and the sub-continent. The conversation turned to (surprise) photography in Korea. One of the topics we discussed was how difficult it is to capture Korea meaningfully in a photographic sense.

It was difficult to put a finger exactly on why this is. After all, we all have Korea with plenty of temple shots, palaces and traditional markets. But as good as they might be, these photos often aren’t much different from what any tourist with a camera might capture.

The consensus seemed to be that vacation-style snaps will be all you produce until you actually develop some kind of relationship with this country.

This relationship could take many different forms, but let me give you a couple of examples to illustrate what I mean.

I was talking to another member of the SPC from Busan last week. He spends a bit of time in his local traditional market being perfectly visible with his camera, even if he’s not actively taking pictures. Over time he’s become part of the furniture and is able to take photos comfortably with the willing consent of the locals – capturing them naturally and getting images not normally available to the furtive outsider.

He had developed a relationship over time with a group of people.

I’ve had numerous experiences like this myself and I can relate a very recent example. I take my film to a lab in Chungmuro in central Seoul for developing, and while waiting the hour or so to pick up the negatives, I enjoy a beverage at a nearby convenience store (as one does). Directly opposite where I relax in a blue plastic chair is a very small men’s clothing store. Because I am there once or twice a week, camera prominent on the blue plastic table, the 74-year-old proprietor of that shop knows what I’m about. Recently he asked me to take his picture standing in front of the suit-festooned facade of his little shop and we shared a drink after.

These situations are photographic gold and are next to impossible to get if you are just breezing by or attempting to operate in stealth mode.

These two examples reinforce what we discussed over dinner – acquiring a benign profile or developing some kind of relationship with people or a particular area, camera prominent, will present opportunities that when captured will powerfully and meaningfully reflect the time you have spent in this country. In addition, the character and atmosphere of your photographs will set them apart from the usual vacation fare.

Also, keep that camera visible. Often just the act of extracting a camera out of a bag will send a signal for people to be on their guard – a visible camera tempers this natural reaction in many people.

Visit the Seoul Photo Club on Flickr and experience the many different relationships photographers from all around Korea have with this country.

Leave a comment

Filed under In Focus

In Focus: Film vs. Digital – Economics Revisited

commentarylogoThis week we were going to look at film vs. digital in the area of image quality. But in the couple of weeks since we looked at the two mediums in terms of economics, I’ve had a bit of negative reaction to my suggestion that over time there may not be as great a difference between the two as you might imagine.

It was considered by some that I was a long way off the mark in that assertion. I don’t think so and I’d just like to revisit that. I wasn’t suggesting people switch to film just because it might prove cheaper. Indeed, as much as I enjoy shooting film on occasion I wouldn’t give up my DSLR in part because of that convenience we talked about last week and image quality is perfectly acceptable for my needs — a digital camera gives me everything I want and I can shoot as much as I want to boot.

Given that it’s accepted that the average person tends to shoot fewer pictures while using film, let me give you a reasonable scenario. At today’s prices you could buy an auto exposure, auto focus 35mm SLR camera, compatible with the best lenses being produced today and shoot one roll of film every week for ten years for around $4,000 or even less. Now that’s a pretty reasonable outlay for any hobby over that period of time. Especially as at the moment I’m considering spending about half that on a new DSLR that will be junk in about half that time.

How is that possible? If you shop smart you can purchase film in 10 or 20 roll lots for about $1 a roll, developing a roll straight to CD costs around $5 and you could spend anything from $50 upwards on an appropriate camera.

This isn’t something I’m necessarily recommending, nor would I myself do it as I enjoy my DSLR too much for the convenience and volume, and I’m prepared to take the hit when it comes to keeping pace with technology. But as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago and the point of that article – it compares favorably and it is certainly food for thought.

In other news, The Seoul Photo Club-Korea Herald Photo Exhibition has been affirmed. Over the course of this year the best images from members of the Seoul Photo Club have been making their way onto the Expat Living page. All these photographs will be collected for a weeklong exhibition starting on Sept. 26 at CafeKkoomm in Hongdae, Seoul.

You will be able to check out those fantastic images from all over Korea in person, so pencil that date into your calendar. More details will be mentioned over the next couple of weeks.  In the meantime get out there, keep shooting and head over to The Seoul Photo Club on Flickr

Leave a comment

Filed under In Focus

In Focus: Film vs. Digital – Convenience

commentarylogoLast week we examined the economics of film vs. digital cameras and came to the conclusion that in the long term, there might be very little between the two. This week the question of convenience between film and digital comes into focus. With two very important exceptions, there is very little difference between actually using comparable digital and film cameras, and there are also a couple of important peripheral considerations.

Before we examine the differences, how are they similar? On either camera the photographer must make a few choices before taking the shot. For example, what mode shall they shoot in (aperture priority, manual, full auto, etc.), or do they need to apply any exposure compensation? These decisions are common to both types of camera: make decisions, compose and shoot. Not much difference in convenience here.

Digital though, does have a couple important advantages around the time of capture. The most obvious is the feedback we get from being able to view the image immediately, and the subsequent choice whether to keep it or delete it and shoot again. This feature is certainly convenient and useful, particularly for those new to SLR photography. Perhaps more significant is the ability to select different ISO values on the DSLR. (Very briefly, the ISO value is the “speed” of the film or digital sensor – the higher the number, the more sensitive to light the film or sensor is. Higher ISO values allow better performance in low-light situations.)

With a film camera, you commit to a fixed ISO value when you purchase a roll of film, and once loaded into the camera there is no way to change it short of loading another roll of film with a different ISO. This gives the DSLR a tremendous advantage when it comes to adapting to a very broad range of lighting conditions. From bright sunlight to the dim interior of a coffee shop on a Friday evening, the DSLR can take it all in stride.

The peripheral issues I mentioned include having to be prepared with extra rolls of film – the capacity of memory cards precludes having to worry about that issue with digital – and post-processing.

With film we have to find the time and convenience to drop off undeveloped film and pick up those hopefully great images we’ve been dying to see. Shooting digital means we have likely already vetted our images at the time of capture and now we are ready to share and enjoy them when we get home. But beware of getting sucked into spending hours in front of the computer making your images “better.”

For me, I think the digital camera has the edge. I like my DSLR’s ability to easily adapt to different lighting conditions and I appreciate the convenience and the flexibility this gives my photography.

Next week, we’ll look a bit closer at images from film and compare them with those captured digitally. In the meantime, head over to the Seoul Photo Club on Flickr.

by Aaron Raisey

Leave a comment

Filed under In Focus

In Focus: Film vs Digital – Economics

commentarylogoThe great debate since the advent of digital photography is on going: which is superior??  Film photography?  Or shooting digital…  Over the next couple of weeks we’ll look at the pros and cons of each, and hopefully have a better handle on each medium as a result.  Probably the best way to do this is compare different areas of photography and image quality, using the SLR style camera as the common denominator.  This week we’ll compare some costs associated with owning cameras.

A 35mm film camera is cheaper than the equivalent digital and this is undisputed.  A comparable digital camera will set you back in excess of a couple of thousand dollars, whereas a good film camera is considerably cheaper.  However, you can still pick up excellent DSLRs for less than $1000, but because the image sensor is smaller than 35mm film image quality suffers as a result by comparison.  Don’t misunderstand, the image quality you get from consumer and pro-sumer DSLRs is still very good (actually better in some areas), but when directly compared to a 35mm print, the difference in quality is unmistakable.  We’ll look at the issue of image quality in a couple of weeks.

The option that the film camera presents that digital does not is the second-hand purchase.  You can pick up a used film cameras as much as 10 or 20 (or more!) years old that function as new, and often for much less than $100.  In contrast, advancing digital technology renders the modern DSLRs obsolete quickly – a good film camera will last you a lifetime while that state of the art digital you bought the other day is junk in a few years.  In terms of value for money combined with longevity, the film camera would appear to be the best option.

The digital camera has the advantage of lower running costs.  After all, the ongoing purchase of rolls of film combined with processing and printing costs conspire to make shooting film a high maintenance endeavor, while these costs are non-existent shooting digital, right?  Well, yes.  But think about what you would spend on keeping up with technology – buying several expensive DSLR cameras over the years – against a single inexpensive film SLR plus film and processing.  How does it stack up?  As digital is the preferred method of storing and sharing images, you can further save in the film arena by forgoing physical prints and getting your negatives processed straight to CD.  I don’t know the definitive answer to this question, but seen in that light, the costs associated with shooting film don’t seem quite so great.  It’s certainly food for thought.

So, all things considered economically speaking, which is the better option?  The justification for the purchase of many expensive DSLRs is the claim that “We’ll save money on film and processing”, but as we’ve just seen over the long term, this argument isn’t necessarily founded on facts and you may just be better off with an inexpensive 20-year-old film camera.

Next week, we’ll look at the question of how easy it is to use film cameras vs. digital.  In the meantime, head over to the Seoul Photo Club on Flickr.

By Aaron Raisey

Leave a comment

Filed under In Focus

In Focus: Film Photography

Q: I bought a digital camera and I love digital technology. However I noticed that a lot of people are still photographing with film cameras. Is there any reason why people still shoot with film? Garam, Seoul.

A: I suppose film is to digital like records are to CDs. Many people just like the old ways. As in all things, some people will argue that film is better than digital, or visa versa.

To be completely blunt, neither film nor digital are superior, because both have their benefits and drawbacks. However it’s easy to see why so many people use digital nowadays, especially because of the instant results and feedback with each photo. Digital is instant, highly editable (thanks to photoshop and similar programs), highly portable, and best of all free. Once you’ve outlayed for a digital camera, you can shoot as much as you want and it costs nothing.

Film has been around since the late 1800s. Even before then photography was possible using various methods, including copper plates and chemical paper. Film had a long run of success and even with the
advent of digital technology, film cameras are still popular.

The biggest benefit of film is the quality. Digital may be useful, and even quite high quality, but the print quality of film is still much higher. It’s true that digital will overtake film quality, when digital cameras are around 32 megapixels, but it’s still nice to look at the quality of a film photograph and marvel at it’s detail. Some digital cameras are higher quality already, but this is only in limited areas. Generally, film is still superior in terms of resolution quality.

It’s important to remember that digital photos still require an analogue capture. An analogue image (through the lens) is captured and digitized. High quality scanning of a film print can be, effectively, the same as a digital photo. So film isn’t that much of a disadvantage, especially if you want to print a digital image and put it on your wall. Once digital is enlarged beyond its optimal size, the quality goes downhill fast. Film doesn’t suffer the same side effects, the print quality is only limited by the size of the print paper.

Many experts argue that film still has much better range and tone than digital. But digital photos can be edited much more easily, and without expensive, messy chemicals.

The final argument is that digital has less noise. While software is improving all the time, I don’t thing digital handles noise particularly well. The size of the pixels in the electronic sensor are directly related to the signal-to-noise in the image produced by the camera. This means that the results vary from camera to camera. Film however does have very low noise film stock. 100 ASA film is particularly good for making images without any noise or grain.

The ace up digital’s sleeve is that all of these features (particularly ISO/ASA) can be changed on the fly. Film photographers have to choose their film stock and leave it in the camera until the roll is finished. The only remedy for this was to carry more film bodies, each loaded with different ASA films. Digital can change it’s
ISO at the push of a button.

Film has become the ‘old school’ approach to photography. Anyone using an old rangefinder or slr is someone who knows their way around cameras. Many people are still developing their own film too, despite
the increasing costs and need for space to build a darkroom. And although digital is instant, there’s nothing more exciting than getting a set of prints back from the film store and looking through your photos. It’s just as much of a thrill, even though you don’t get the chance to go back and re-shoot the shots you messed up.

Film is becoming more expensive too, but despite digital’s popularity, film will never die. Ultimately,
each will always have a following. Personally, I love photographing in film just as much as I love my digital camera. Both cameras are used regularly and I love getting rolls of film developed. I think, too, that the old ways can be the best ways. Since digital does everything for you, photographers may become lazy or forgetful of the importance of manual focus or manual shooting. It’s a good lesson and reminder to
have to do everything yourself.

Besides, there’s nothing more satisfying than the solid ‘click’ that comes with a film camera’s shutter.

Happy Shooting!

Original article by David Smeaton at www.davidsmeaton.com on Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

Leave a comment

Filed under In Focus