View Full Version : Am I a film snob?
Riverman
02-13-2011, 06:30
Yesterday afternoon I found myself in a cafe in Annapolis after a day shooting landscapes on the shore of the Chesapeake. It had been a fantastic day. Pleasant sunshine but a biting wind. For the first time in weeks I'd spent the whole day outdoors shooting and I felt completely exhausted but invigorated too. There was colour in my cheeks.
A guy came in and sat at the table next to me and plonked down a huge, pro level Nikon D-SLR with a muscular looking zoom lens attached. A short while later a couple came and sat at the table next to him. The guy in the couple clocked the DSLR instantly and noted to the chap what a fine camera it was. From what I heard of the conversation, the guy with the camera was a pro while the guy fawning over it was, like me, an amateur photographer.
I resisted the temptation to unveil the Canham 5x7 that was stuffed into my rucksack. It would have been rude to interrupt them. But in my mind I was thinking.... "That's not a camera, now THIS is a camera".
As a film acolyte, am I a snob? Over hearing this conversation next to me I felt - I am ashamed to admit - a sense of superiority and also resentment, not so much towards the guy with the camera (although he was exhibiting it rather ostentatiously) but rather the second guy heaping praise on it. Mainly resentment that the onward march of digital (particularly as it is embraced by non-professionals) is leading to the disappearance of films and papers that I've enjoyed for years - especially in the realm of colour.
Digital has so much going for it if you are a professional: speed, economy, image quality, ease of editing etc. If I was a pro, I'd shoot digital. No doubt. But I don't have clients, deadlines or books of account for my photography. I shoot what I want, when I am able. I enjoy the entire process, from exposure to print. I love the fact that each shot I take results in a tangible, physical image in negatives that, archived properly, should survive for many decades.
Not to say anything about the skill of the individual photographer but I wonder if there are different degrees (or rather 'intensity levels') of amateurism? I consider myself an extreme amateur in the true sense of the word. I'm not talking about my technical proficiency here (I would say that I have a reasonable level of technical skill - but like any craft, photography is a constant learning process) but rather my enthusiasm for what I do. Photography is my life's passion. It completely drives me. If I won the lottery next week I know exactly how I would fill my days after quitting my day job.
These days though, it seems as if 'photography' is everybody's hobby. I have friends who have never had much interest in photography at all (or any other creative pursuit for that matter) but who now tout the latests DSLRs and claim photography as a 'hobby' even though the snapshots produced exist only on Facebook pages etc...
Guys and girls that shoot photographs to put bread on the table should make the most of the fantastic digital tools that are available to them. But it's such a shame that so many professed amateurs are turning away from film or never even coming into contact with it.
I hate to feel like a snob. But the digital onslaught just makes it harder and harder to do what I love, in terms of the cost and availability of film materials. And few, if any, of those new DSLR shooters know or care it seems.
dave lackey
02-13-2011, 06:49
Yesterday afternoon I found myself in a cafe in Annapolis after a day shooting landscapes on the shore of the Chesapeake. It had been a fantastic day. Pleasant sunshine but a biting wind. For the first time in weeks I'd spent the whole day outdoors shooting and I felt completely exhausted but invigorated too. There was colour in my cheeks.
A guy came in and sat at the table next to me and plonked down a huge, pro level Nikon D-SLR with a muscular looking zoom lens attached. A short while later a couple came and sat at the table next to him. The guy in the couple clocked the DSLR instantly and noted to the chap what a fine camera it was. From what I heard of the conversation, the guy with the camera was a pro while the guy fawning over it was, like me, an amateur photographer.
I resisted the temptation to unveil the Canham 5x7 that was stuffed into my rucksack. It would have been rude to interrupt them. But in my mind I was thinking.... "That's not a camera, now THIS is a camera".
As a film acolyte, am I a snob? Over hearing this conversation next to me I felt - I am ashamed to admit - a sense of superiority and also resentment, not so much towards the guy with the camera (although he was exhibiting it rather ostentatiously) but rather the second guy heaping praise on it. Mainly resentment that the onward march of digital (particularly as it is embraced by non-professionals) is leading to the disappearance of films and papers that I've enjoyed for years - especially in the realm of colour.
Digital has so much going for it if you are a professional: speed, economy, image quality, ease of editing etc. If I was a pro, I'd shoot digital. No doubt. But I don't have clients, deadlines or books of account for my photography. I shoot what I want, when I am able. I enjoy the entire process, from exposure to print. I love the fact that each shot I take results in a tangible, physical image in negatives that, archived properly, should survive for many decades.
Not to say anything about the skill of the individual photographer but I wonder if there are different degrees (or rather 'intensity levels') of amateurism? I consider myself an extreme amateur in the true sense of the word. I'm not talking about my technical proficiency here (I would say that I have a reasonable level of technical skill - but like any craft, photography is a constant learning process) but rather my enthusiasm for what I do. Photography is my life's passion. It completely drives me. If I won the lottery next week I know exactly how I would fill my days after quitting my day job.
These days though, it seems as if 'photography' is everybody's hobby. I have friends who have never had much interest in photography at all (or any other creative pursuit for that matter) but who now tout the latests DSLRs and claim photography as a 'hobby' even though the snapshots produced exist only on Facebook pages etc...
Guys and girls that shoot photographs to put bread on the table should make the most of the fantastic digital tools that are available to them. But it's such a shame that so many professed amateurs are turning away from film or never even coming into contact with it.
I hate to feel like a snob. But the digital onslaught just makes it harder and harder to do what I love, in terms of the cost and availability of film materials. And few, if any, of those new DSLR shooters know or care it seems.
Snob? Nah.
Defensive? Yep. So am I because the world has changed, some for good, most for not so good. These days everybody thinks they are a photographer. In a discussion with a famous photographer living in Montreal last year (no name given as it is not important), I was enlightened about how tough it is to be a photographer these days. P&S, DSLR, unlimited spending on computers and mega-expensive digital cameras, which was unheard of by the average person a few years ago.... have all changed the scene.:mad:
Forget the quality or lack of quality of the average person's photos. Forget that they spend obscene amounts of money on a Nikon, Canon or whatever and never make a dime. It is because of the changes that photographers have to distinguish themselves FROM those people to make a living. Either that or become a hobbyist.
The saddest thing is, people and I do mean professional photographers and hobbyists alike, limit themselves to digital. In my former profession, it would be suicidal to limit oneself, and I cannot imagine anyone limiting their creative ability, but they do.
Am I defensive? Yes, because it makes life more difficult as a photographer and also as a film-based photographer specifically.
BUT, there is hope in that we have an opportunity to do our own thing and offer something different, or, just satisfy our own interests as a hobby. How is that for a bright light?:D
Personally, I use both digital and film about equally. Which one is more fun?
FILM!
So, there is no reason for jealousy or whatever you want to call it. When people fawn over that plastic DSLR today, it will be replaced by something else in a few months and soon headed to the landfill. Kinda like my wife's classic E-Class that will far outlast any of the Japanese cars we have owned over the last 30 years (all of them are in the junkyard). Smug? Snob?
No, just a realization of value from some of the finer pieces of engineering ever offered.:)
dave lackey
02-13-2011, 07:04
Oh, yeah, about that disappearance of film thing.
Do like Roland and Tom A and numerous others, and buy hundreds of rolls at a time for your own use. Then, expand your hobby (or profession) and TEACH everyone you know all you can about film photography. It is like any other worthwhile endeavor. We can keep it alive.:)
The so-called doom of film is caused by US not THEM, whoever that would be.:p
Morca007
02-13-2011, 13:32
Yes, you are a snob.
Ahhh nah... All us film shooters want to show off our gear as 'real' cameras. I imagine part of the reason is it is more than possible that the guy carrying around the DSLR had never once laid his eyes on a view camera and probably didn't think people actually used them.
Though, you can never judge the quality of the photographer by the size of their camera anymore. The days when only the studio shooters could afford the expensive ones is going. As Dave said, everyone now fancies themselves a photographer and they spend huge amounts on money on gear that surpasses their needs - it's all due to that false mind set that a more expensive camera takes better photos. That is a fact that probably applies to many shooters here at RFF, myself included.
I was giving some advice to a young man on a local forum who was about to take a photography class and wanted to know which camera would be appropriate. BTW, I am the only film shooter who seems to participate on that forum. He mentioned that he didn't know if he was going to be using film or digital. 15 or so other members all recommended DSLR's from entry models to some interesting people saying he should go straight for the 5d :D
I was the only one who gave him a little list of nice, extremely cheap film slr's he could pick up and ended my post by saying I think it would be great if he was going to be taught on film, as the learning process is far far more intensive and therefore better IMO. Also, I said that if I could give you one lesson is is that no photographer is better than the simplest camera, a more expensive camera does not take better photos.
The OP replied to the simplest camera comment completely confused and couldn't believe that to be true :(
But naturally I get comments against me from the 'digital snob' crowd saying how untrue everything I said was, and that with digital I can instantly look at things like histograms and that will better my photography.
I'm sorry, but all I was thinking at that point was "Why the hell do I want to look at a histogram? I'm a photographer not a scientist, I know what a underexposed photo looks like and I don't need a graph of mumbo jumbo to tell me that and have me pixel peeping on the sidewalk every second."
And also, honestly how many people who go out and buy cameras for photo classes actually care about looking at histograms? Not a lot I imagine, most reckon if they just stick it on auto everything will be sweet.
Anyway, I think film snobbery is kind of legitimate. Not because film photographers are better but rather that someone shooting film - the product that the photographer can be so varied, different formats, film, developing methods, printing etc. It's such an in depth medium. Whereas digital photography, excluding crazy photoshop skills, will always look like a digital photograph - 95% chance I know what their work looks like without even seeing it, to film shooters that is just to boring. And I think that many film shooters don't consider photoshop to an aspect of 'photography'. At least I don't, there's no light, lenses, photosensitive material, chemicals or risk involved. Common.. it has an undo button, it's more along the lines of digital art rather than photography. But most digital photographers will disagree with me, so yeah I'm probably a film snob.
Ok, so rant over but I agree with Dave, film dies because we stop promoting it. You probably can't convince the guy with the 10k digital equipment sitting on the cafe table, but I can't help but think that the oogling guy next to him could have found your view camera far more interesting and impressive :)
But pulling it out just like that would have been very rude! Next time you sit down at a cafe, leave the camera on the table instead :D
Excuse the long post...
berlincontemporary
02-13-2011, 14:03
I hate to feel like a snob. But the digital onslaught just makes it harder and harder to do what I love, in terms of the cost and availability of film materials. And few, if any, of those new DSLR shooters know or care it seems.
Upgrade to a nice DSLR yourself (maybe 5D mark II?) and stop looking back.
Nikon Bob
02-13-2011, 14:05
Yes, you are a snob.
+1, I,m glad someone else said it first.
Bob
dave lackey
02-13-2011, 15:25
Well, the OP opened himself up for smart a** comments, so I hope he has thick skin.:p
The question should really be, are those two people at the other table digital snobs?:rolleyes:
Riverman
02-13-2011, 15:41
Well, the OP opened himself up for smart a** comments, so I hope he has thick skin.:p
The question should really be, are those two people at the other table digital snobs?:rolleyes:
Thick enough!
In any event... the emotions that I discuss in my original post have little to do with photography and more with ethics and moral philosophy really. We are all of us guilty from time to time of those venial sins that the Church classifies as forgiveable.
So there you have it. I'm doing my public penance on rff!
dave lackey
02-13-2011, 15:47
:):):):):):):):):):)
Film and digital both have their place. No shortage of film down here in Oz either.
Leigh Youdale
02-13-2011, 21:40
Different folks, different strokes. It's all photography, though.
dave lackey
02-14-2011, 05:00
Different folks, different strokes. It's all photography, though.
Absolutely.:):)
jsrockit
02-14-2011, 06:33
I feel this way sometimes looking at DSLRs and I'm using digital cameras. :) Yes, it is snoberry. However, I try to remind myself that they are just tools and they are avilable to anyone who wants to buy them... just like film cameras and film. Also, for all I know, that person might be a great photographer.
Additionally, I don't think quality cameras are any more ubiquitous than they were 20-30 years ago when every average joe seemed to have a manual focus SLR (remember the boring slide shows?). I think the way we view images has changed and has made photographs, that normally wouldn't be seen outside of the family, more prevalent (Flickr, etc). Most people I know that have low-end DSLRs do not think they are great photographers, but are just happy to have a tool that allows them to make techincally good (exposure, etc not composition) photos of their lives.
dave lackey
02-14-2011, 06:44
Photography for the average person has changed EXPONENTIALLY since the 60's, 70's and even the 80's when electronics and AF were first introduced. And yes, Flickr and Facecrap and all the other media have radically changed photography for the average person. So has digital! So have phones! You name it, it has changed radically. Limiting the discussion of change in photography to the 1980's shows only that you are limiting yourself in the discussion.:)
At the end of the day...use digital, if it turns you on.;)
Use film, if it turns you on.:)
The truly blessed among us will use both.:p
Technology Dictatorship marches on.
We are here "talking" about Analog and Digital (notice I did not said "Film") photography and the World is already revolving on Video Everywhere.
Pro Photographers now have to shoot Video (in HD mode no less...), edit & comment on what they shoot besides taking photos.
(remember me on some thread while ago about shooting just video and pick a frame (one frame) has a "photo".
Yes, we all snob's..... even the Digi ones they (we) just don't know it! Yet.
Because I like to be turn on, I use both... but not Video!
+1 on everyone who said that as we have film snobs, we also have digital snobs;)
The only thing film does not have is the luxury of snobbery. All this film snobbery, calling film cameras the "real" cameras is killing the industry.
Remember, no matter how many thousands of rolls of film you buy, you're not keeping film alive. Your just keeping film on its respirator.
Getting people to shoot film is the only way up and snobbery does not help one bit.
I use and self publish both. Love'm for different reasons but love them both.
jordanstarr
02-15-2011, 08:24
I'm a film snob as well, riverman. Maybe we could start a support group or something.
That being said, I did a photography program with about 40 homeless youth for 6 months and we used digital because it had it's place -it was easier to learn, easier to edit and they got their immediate satisfaction. A couple of the youth used film and one loved it, so I gave him film and a camera to keep and just keep doing it.
As weird as it sounds, I kind of agree with berlin. Get a digital camera and see what all the hype is about. I shot with a pro DSLR for a couple months, got a photo published in Guitar Player Magazine during that time and had another 5-10 published in album art and other stuff for bands. BUT....I hated it. it was too easy. It made me lazy in every respect -editing, composition of the shot, watching the light, etc. As such, I have a biased towards digital and a cynical view on it's direction more towards "computer art" than photography (my opinion, which could use it's own discussion). That's why I'm a snob. It's not that digital cannot produce great prints....but I'm going to stop ranting now.
...so how about that support group?
cooltouch
02-15-2011, 11:48
Technology Dictatorship marches on.
We are here "talking" about Analog and Digital (notice I did not said "Film") photography and the World is already revolving on Video Everywhere.
Pro Photographers now have to shoot Video (in HD mode no less...), edit & comment on what they shoot besides taking photos.
(remember me on some thread while ago about shooting just video and pick a frame (one frame) has a "photo".
Yes, we all snob's..... even the Digi ones they (we) just don't know it! Yet.
Because I like to be turn on, I use both... but not Video!
I think you're onto something here. A few days ago I saw a TV commercial for that new newspaper that you can get on your iPad? Called The Daily, I think? The brief shot of the paper instantly reminded me of the "magical" newspapers in the Harry Potter books/movies, where the images had movement while the text was stationary. When I saw this, I realized that a Rubicon of sorts had been crossed. Granted, with the proliferation of YouTube and other sorts of videos being embedded into websites, this technology is not new. But having it in newspaper format on an iPad is.
Your average guy or gal on the street will always prefer to watch video over viewing stills. It's in our DNA. Our vision is "designed" to detect movement. And if people can see a mini motion picture running alongside the text of the article, they will go for this, and they won't even look back. Image resolution takes a backseat to bandwidth. As the iPad and it knockoffs proliferate, soon people will want digital photo frames that will playback video instead of just stills. Heck, for all I know, digital photo frames that play back digital video already exist. The technology is certainly there.
It could well be that still photography, as a popular medium, has entered its last days.
As for me, I own two digital cameras -- one P&S and one DSLR. But I own 8 or 10 still cameras -- not sure exactly how many, I'll have to think about it for a minute. And it distresses me to think that a day may come when I can no longer find film for these cameras, a few of which are like best of old friends to me. I've known them longer than just about anyone else I know outside of family. Frankly I don't care how much better than film digital allegedly is. I just want to be able to continue to use these dear old friends for as long as I choose, and I don't want others making those decisions for me. They can just shaddup about their danged digital and leave me in peace.
jordanstarr
02-15-2011, 14:28
It could well be that still photography, as a popular medium, has entered its last days.
...I somehow doubt this very much. The ability to take a still image from a motion picture existed from the very beginning of the process decades ago. It might be that taking a still from video and passing it as "still photography" has been getting more popular as technology gets better and the quality improves, but I highly doubt it will kill still photography. I bet if you took a poll here with digital photographers who have DSLRs that are capable of this process and ask: "would you scrap still photography all together and take "frames" from their video instead?", I bet less than 1% actually would do this. This is why so many videographers also do still photography with a completely different camera for that kind of work rather than simply taking a frame from their video. It's a very different process and way of thinking about things.
dave lackey
02-15-2011, 14:30
...I somehow doubt this very much. The ability to take a still image from a motion picture existed from the very beginning of the process decades ago. It might be that taking a still from video and passing it as "still photography" has been getting more popular as technology gets better and the quality improves, but I highly doubt it will kill still photography. I bet if you took a poll here with digital photographers who have DSLRs that are capable of this process and ask: "would you scrap still photography all together and take "frames" from their video instead?", I bet less than 1% actually would do this. This is why so many videographers also do still photography with a completely different camera for that kind of work rather than simply taking a frame from their video. It's a very different process and way of thinking about things.
I agree and so does this working videographer/photographer:
http://blog.leica-camera.com/interview/roy-samaha-an-artist%e2%80%99s-eye-on-the-2011-egyptian-revolution/
Check this part:
"Q. How do you think your training as a videographer influences your still photography, or does it?
A. I usually separate the two mediums in my mind. Still, photography is reality minus the movement and sound. Basically it’s cutting out a segment of reality and presenting it. Video is literally recording experiences in time. I don’t think they are connected; they are totally different mediums. I like both. The V-Lux is amazing because it has very good HD video capability and also takes high quality still pictures. At every moment, I could take a still picture and then record a few seconds of video that I can use later for different work."
I'm also a film snob. I don't mean to be, I'm not trying to be. It's just that digital makes me so damn bored I have to go away.
And, dry hair is for squids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ekzXq7wG2w
emasterphoto
02-17-2011, 20:00
It made me lazy in every respect -editing, composition of the shot, watching the light, etc. As such, I have a biased towards digital and a cynical view on it's direction more towards "computer art" than photography
Digital didn't make you lazy, your attitude towards it did. Sounds like you went into it with a lack of respect for the medium, so you treated it like it wasn't worth putting effort into. Composition, watching the light, exposure, etc. don't change with digital and they have just as much importance as they do in film. If you didn't shoot digital to the same standard as you do with film, don't blame the medium, blame yourself.
cooltouch
02-17-2011, 21:10
...I somehow doubt this very much. The ability to take a still image from a motion picture existed from the very beginning of the process decades ago. It might be that taking a still from video and passing it as "still photography" has been getting more popular as technology gets better and the quality improves, but I highly doubt it will kill still photography. I bet if you took a poll here with digital photographers who have DSLRs that are capable of this process and ask: "would you scrap still photography all together and take "frames" from their video instead?", I bet less than 1% actually would do this. This is why so many videographers also do still photography with a completely different camera for that kind of work rather than simply taking a frame from their video. It's a very different process and way of thinking about things.
I understand all that. Which is why I qualified my statement by using the term "as a popular medium." You're probably right, but with the inclusion of more and more video feeds into media that used to have stills only, and with the increased usages of iPad-like devices, I can see it happening. Not saying I'm in favor of it at all, but it's a trend and it's there.
dave lackey
02-18-2011, 04:07
Digital didn't make you lazy, your attitude towards it did. Sounds like you went into it with a lack of respect for the medium, so you treated it like it wasn't worth putting effort into. Composition, watching the light, exposure, etc. don't change with digital and they have just as much importance as they do in film. If you didn't shoot digital to the same standard as you do with film, don't blame the medium, blame yourself.
It did the same to me. Spray and Pray with exceptional Nikon pro bodies DSLR's. No I am not lazy.:mad: But over a short time, I did find the best usage of all my digital cameras over the last 10 years. Now I use film when I want to slow down and enjoy a totally different experience, as well as using film cameras for specific uses.
After tens of thousands of digital images both professionally and personally, I find that both digtial and film fit my particular needs quite well, as do my clients.
How did this turn into a "digital snob vs film snob vs digital snob" thread anyway?:)... LOL
Nikon Bob
02-18-2011, 04:17
How did this turn into a "digital snob vs film snob vs digital snob" thread anyway?:)... LOL
I think it was your post #8 in this thread which first mentioned the term digital snob.
Bob
Instantclassic
02-18-2011, 06:03
Why bother?
Concentrate on your work/hobby. If it makes you feel good its probably something worth doing. At lest for yourself. Do not expect more than that. Masochist : )
dave lackey
02-18-2011, 10:04
I think it was your post #8 in this thread which first mentioned the term digital snob.
Bob
Yep...I am both!:D
Nikon Bob
02-18-2011, 11:00
Yep...I am both!:D
I hope I am neither but I just use both and try not to worry whether someone else appreciates/validates how I do my hobby or not. I just try to enjoy my hobby and let others enjoy theirs their way. Anyway the OP's original question was easily answered awhile ago.
Bob
Well, I'm going out shooting tomorrow, and I've just packed my bag with...
Canon EOS 5DII with 24-105L
Leica CL with Summicron-C 40/2 and ERA-100
I love them both
Roger Hicks
02-18-2011, 14:30
Terence Donovan: "Let's face it, ****ing cameras are so ****ing cheap, you can buy a new ****ing camera for each ****ing job."
Me: "Maybe you can, but we're not all Terence Donovan."
Terence: "Not my problem, sunshine."
That's been one of my favourite quotes for the last 25 years or so: "Not my problem, sunshine." You need worry only about the things you choose to worry about.
Cheers,
R.
jordanstarr
02-19-2011, 20:21
Digital didn't make you lazy, your attitude towards it did. Sounds like you went into it with a lack of respect for the medium, so you treated it like it wasn't worth putting effort into. Composition, watching the light, exposure, etc. don't change with digital and they have just as much importance as they do in film. If you didn't shoot digital to the same standard as you do with film, don't blame the medium, blame yourself.
I actually really wanted to go digital and didn't have a lack of respect for it at the time. I was sick of using a bathroom for a darkroom and wanted to "move with the direction of photography" so that I wouldn't "fall behind". I guess I should have been more specific in my statement and then you wouldn't have started your assumptions.
The reasons it made me lazy is because I could take as many photos as I wanted, so my composition was all over the place, trying all kinds of stuff that didn't work instead of sitting back, looking at the image and really thinking about it. At concerts, I didn't even have to look through the camera. I could just hold my flash in one hand, camera in the other, set it to 17mm and just start shooting like crazy (checking every now and then to see if my lighting was still the same). Because the technology was there, it made me lazy. Sure I could have taken my time and really thought more about my shots, but because I had digital, I didn't have to. Every medium whether 35mm, medium format, large format, digital changes the way a photographer shoots. I wasn't lazy before digital and I'm not lazy now that I went back to film....I became lazy when I started using it because it allowed me to and I fell into that like so many other digital photographers out there (not saying ALL). I see many photographers doing "street photography", not even looking through their camera. They're either too scared to look through the camera or are just lazy and don't take the time to compose the image, so they shoot from the hip and adjust the lighting, etc in photoshop. When the technology is there, it's easy to fall in that trap. I understand that there's lots of digital photographers who take lots of time and really think about what they're shooting, but the technology is easy to fall into. By the way, do you use auto focus or aperture priority or auto anything? 'cause that's just a small portion of the trap.
rogerzilla
04-24-2011, 11:36
Everyone might be a "photographer" but few people can compose a picture. Give 100 people a full length portrait to take and 50 of them will probably centre the face in the frame. Give them a landscape with a featureless grey sky and they'll put the horizon halfway up. The sad thing is that they'll freely acknowledge that their pics "aren't very good" but they have no idea how to improve them.
I did a formal photography qualification (UK GCE "A" level) a few years ago at night school. I don't actually remember anyone trying to teach us composition, so either we'd all got the hang of it or they didn't know how to. In my case I used the rule of thirds a bit and then, after a few hundred frames, I realised Edward Weston was right; "to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk."
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say Roger,
First you say that people are taking bad photographs because they are not following the rules of composition. Then you say that the rules of composition are meaningless?
Either way, I do believe that any 'rule' telling one how to compose something is rubbish.
Take heart: there are young people trying film for the first time in their lives or so it would seem. It may not be quite relevant to your post but a shop I visit which sells very desirable cameras and lenses said they now stock Holgas etc in response to demand. Indeed when I was recently there a young woman purchased one. If it means anything I have no particular digital/film leanings, I use both and have a darkroom and scanner as well so I have options.
Stuart John
04-25-2011, 00:28
Trouble with the whole Hipster Holga fad is that their experience of film will be pretty Low-Fi. Many won't ever see what film is truely capable of. When it is no longer hip to mess with plastic toy cameras many could abandon film for digital cameras.
Guaranteed
04-25-2011, 06:44
Not a snob at all it's just what you dig using, I use both and suck equally with either. I just find my suckage to be instantaneous with digital as opposed to waiting to finish a roll of film and having it developed.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.