View Full Version : Why shooting film will make you a better street photographer
Hi,
as we all know, rangefinder photography is famous especially for being excellent for street photography.
Here is an interesting view from a street photographer who started photography with digital, and now explores the benefits of using film rangefinders.
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2011/02/6-reasons-why-shooting-film-will-make-you-a-better-street-photographer/
For me, who learned photography with film, then explored the digital world intensively and now is doing much more with film again it is always interesting to see how photographers who began with digital describe their way to film.
Cheers, Jan
Moriturii
10-24-2011, 03:10
This whole article has to be a massive joke. There is absolutely nothing that film can do "better" then digital in the points 1 to 4 that he brings up. The difference between digital and film is only that film inherently has a different look to it, sort of like oil paintings vs water based painting, but with software such as Silver Efex Pro even that is disputable. And film let's you work in a darkroom. That's it really. Nothing to do with getting you closer or appreciate light or anything like that.
At point 5 and 6 is where his brain starts to kick in again.
And this comes from someone who only shots film.
Agreed, it seems pretty worthless.
Wether he might be right or wrong with his view is absolutely not my point.
My view is, at least partly, different from his point of view.
I see other merits in the use of film in street photography.
But I have often heard similar arguments like his ones from other photographers who have started digital.
So I find it interesting to see the different points of views dependant on whether you have learned with film or with digital (some interesting comments from other users on his blog, too).
Similar experience with lo-fi photographers: Lots of them started with digital equipment and are now experiencing film as an alternative.
Their reasons to shoot film are completely different to mine and seem often quite strange to me.
But nevertheless interesting, I try to keep open-minded to these other point of views.
Cheers, Jan
silverbullet
10-24-2011, 03:37
here are already two urban legends:
1. a RF camera makes a better "streetphotographer"
2. analogue film makes.......better....
My theory that there are at least 10 real reasons:
1. good shoes and warm stockings in winter and suede in summer
2. the attitude
3. the attitude
4. - 10. the attidtude.....
'street' can be sooo easy..... :D when you get it. No Leica might help you nor a X100 or a FED2......
.....it's your brain, dude....:rolleyes:
These diatribes that love to put film and rangefinders into the realm of mythology rather than reality give me the screaming ****s!
But thanks for the link just the same! :D
These diatribes that love to put film and rangefinders into the realm of mythology rather than reality give me the screaming ****s!
Join the club.
It's really just another rehash of "Gear X will make me a better Y", with gear X being quaint and old-fashioned and hip.
And he's shooting colour. Everyone knows that real street photographers shoot TRI-X, as God intended.
andredossantos
10-24-2011, 04:10
Let me say that right now I only shoot film and disagree entirely with all his assertions except the last. The part about seeing light especially. Anyone can turn off the auto features on a digital camera. Pretty ridiculous article all around.
jsrockit
10-24-2011, 04:24
7. Shooting film, in Eric Kim's case, will make you underexpose... ;)
A purely nonsensical article...
Roger Hicks
10-24-2011, 04:24
Yeah, but look. He's trying to drum up business for workshops. It may be 9/10 drivel, but to quote the immortal Bernard Levin theatre review, "Those who quite like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they quite like."
It's much like the 'one camera, one lens' fantasy in the thread about how "great photographers" use simple kit.
Cheers,
R.
Archlich
10-24-2011, 04:27
Few of these ever mentioned the separation of shooting scene & darkroom, the practice of printing/viewing pictures, and many other things concerning visual culture.
Look, think, print, (and fondling with the brick of metal and glass,) To me those are real charms of analog photography.
-
Point 3 does have some sense, though. A big black DSLR is the most intimidating, while almost any other instrument from small P&S to Speed Graphics will work better, each in their unique way, on the wordless communication of the street.
I haven`t seen so badly processed color photographies for a long time ...
Roger Hicks
10-24-2011, 04:34
Few of these ever mentioned the separation of shooting scene & darkroom, the practice of printing/viewing pictures, and many other things concerning visual culture.
Look, think, print, (and fondling with the brick of metal and glass,) To me those are real charms of analog photography.
-
Point 3 does have some sense, though. A big black DSLR is the most intimidating, while almost any other instrument from small P&S to Speed Graphics will work better, each in their unique way, on the wordless communication of the street.
THINK?
What are you? Some kinda commie prevert?
Cheers,
R.
emraphoto
10-24-2011, 05:16
Yeah, but look. He's trying to drum up business for workshops. It may be 9/10 drivel, but to quote the immortal Bernard Levin theatre review, "Those who quite like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they quite like."
It's much like the 'one camera, one lens' fantasy in the thread about how "great photographers" use simple kit.
Cheers,
R.
the problem is this Roger, i suspect using one camera and one lens for long periods of time has led to me being a better photographer. i am critical of the myths/rules that the interwebs seems to pump out with vigour, however the term 'fantasy' seems a bit harsh.
Robin Harrison
10-24-2011, 05:20
This whole article has to be a massive joke. There is absolutely nothing that film can do "better" then digital in the points 1 to 4 that he brings up.
I would argue that his points 1) and 4) have much merit, even if his theory and explanations leave a lot to be desired. But they are indirect benefits, and don't exclude digital from allowing the desired results.
And it's not a case of film doing it "better" but a case of film being "more likely to...".
1) Film is "more likely to" slow you down, even if for the simple reason that pressing the shutter costs money. Other reasons include the limit of 36 shots on a roll, slower (in general) continuous shooting speeds, film changes, and the option of shooting larger (and slower) formats.
4) Film is "more likely to" help you master light, because an incorrectly exposed frame is wasteful, and can only provide feedback on exposure after development. The benefits of mastering light and getting exposure right first time are far more compelling when using film as a medium.
Roger Hicks
10-24-2011, 05:55
the problem is this Roger, i suspect using one camera and one lens for long periods of time has led to me being a better photographer. i am critical of the myths/rules that the interwebs seems to pump out with vigour, however the term 'fantasy' seems a bit harsh.
And what had you tried beforehand? And why did you choose the camera/lens you chose? Do you not reserve the option of changing cameras/lenses in the future, for whatever reason?
Sure, endlessly hopping from one camera to another is likely to make anyone a worse photographer, but they probably aren't going to get better until they have the right camera, or at least, accept that the search for the perfect camera is an illusion. Forcing yourself to use a second-best camera ('second best' in terms of whether objectively it can deliver what you need/want) is like forcing yourself to "pick a film -- any film -- and use it for a year." Use the wrong film, and you won't be happy.
Besides which, I'd be surprised if you didn't have a backup for the camera you use most...
Cheers,
R.
Thank God I saw it was an Eric Kim article before having clicked on the link. Can we perhaps get some form of "warning system" in here ??
These diatribes that love to put film and rangefinders into the realm of mythology rather than reality give me the screaming ****s!
But thanks for the link just the same! :D
DITTO
All his images looks like they were improperly exposed and/or taken on expired or heat damaged film. If there is a "film look" I hope it doesn't become synonymous with that mess.
I couldn't read the article without thinking it was a joke, apparently it's not intended to be, still funny though.
It's kind of a pity that we feel the need to turn everything into an ideology, rather than just enjoying what we do and accepting that as enough (at least for those amateurs among us)
I'm still use film 100% of the time; has failed to improve my dismal performance since I stopped using digital.
shadowfox
10-25-2011, 07:20
Thank God I saw it was an Eric Kim article before having clicked on the link. Can we perhaps get some form of "warning system" in here ??
Really?
Why?
I have no idea who this Eric Kim is, but I don't think he's a bad photographer. At least he has an eye to spot interesting things on the street.
Sometime I really wish to see some of the members here who post highly critical statements about others would show us how good they really are... y'know, with pictures, not mere words.
shadowfox
10-25-2011, 07:25
As for the topic at hand.
I happen to think that using digital camera *can* make street photography too easy, if you just "spray and pray."
At least you can't do that with film. Not easily or cheaply that is.
Roger Hicks
10-25-2011, 07:29
Really?
Why?
I have no idea who this Eric Kim is, but I don't think he's a bad photographer. At least he has an eye to spot interesting things on the street.
Sometime I really wish to see some of the members here who post highly critical statements about others would show us how good they really are... y'know, with pictures, not mere words.
Dear Will,
There's also the point that we can learn what not to do by looking at others' work. I always say that while I'm far from the best photographer in the world, I'm not one of the worst either, and because I try to explain how I do things, people can try to emulate whatever is good, or better still, improve on it, using similar techniques; or, if they really hate it, they can learn some of the things to avoid.
(Incidentally, I don't know who Eric Kim is either. But then, I doubt he knows who I am).
Cheers,
R.
Really?
Why?
I have no idea who this Eric Kim is, but I don't think he's a bad photographer. At least he has an eye to spot interesting things on the street.
Sometime I really wish to see some of the members here who post highly critical statements about others would show us how good they really are... y'know, with pictures, not mere words.
Interesting theory. That would mean that only someone who has proven themselves to be "good" TO the unwashed masses and ACCORDING to each unwashed mass, could state other people are "bad" - only those who are "loved" by the people could have a "voice". Do you see any problem with this, or is this exactly what you want and believe ?
Actually, why am I trying to use logic against yet another unthinking "internet voice" ? Because this is the internet and they DO have a voice ... I'm Old School I guess, I expect some sort of logic in an argument - and that is both my fault and my problem. You are right. Only the best photographers can criticise anyone else or anyone else's photography - good point - well done, Shadowfox !!
Now, if only we enaged our brains rather than our mouths ...
shadowfox
10-26-2011, 07:36
Interesting theory. That would mean that only someone who has proven themselves to be "good" TO the unwashed masses and ACCORDING to each unwashed mass, could state other people are "bad" - only those who are "loved" by the people could have a "voice". Do you see any problem with this, or is this exactly what you want and believe ?
Actually, why am I trying to use logic against yet another unthinking "internet voice" ? Because this is the internet and they DO have a voice ... I'm Old School I guess, I expect some sort of logic in an argument - and that is both my fault and my problem. You are right. Only the best photographers can criticise anyone else or anyone else's photography - good point - well done, Shadowfox !!
Now, if only we enaged our brains rather than our mouths ...
You were not critiquing Eric Kim, if you were, you'd say that photo looks bad because... that one is good because....
Instead you put a label on him and basically said if it's from him, it's not worth looking. That speaks loudly about your attitude.
That's a prideful attitude, Damen.
Engaging our brain without being balanced with a good attitude will end up making us look like, sound like, and may eventually turn us into an arrogant person.
Or is that exactly what you want and believe?
Eric Kim ? No, I'm not critiquing him, nor have I said that if it is Eric Kim, you must not look. I have said that I will not look if it is Eric Kim, and if you believe that this personal preference is somehow indicative of a defective attitute or is an indefensible position of mine, then I would suggest your attitude is clearly one of believing you can control my personal preference and my ability to voice said preference.
What I DID critique however, was your "logic" when you stated "Sometime I really wish to see some of the members here who post highly critical statements about others would show us how good they really are... y'know, with pictures, not mere words".
As I pointed out, this is an incredibly arrogant (prideful) attitude in which only someone whose photography has "merit" (presumably assessed by you), is able to express an opinion. This is elitist and dangerous and is clearly illogical, as it would lead to a veritable cornucopia of ridiculous situations if actually applied in real life (you can only say you don't like a movie on a forum once you have submitted a movie you have made which proves you worthy to make any assessment. You can only criticise a baseball batsman after showing how adept you are at facing a fastball yourself). The fact that you would suggest opinions are invalid without the provision of evidence of a person's "worth" in an allied field is, as I said, elitist and wrong in my opinion. If you believe my disagreeing with you is evidence of arrogance and pride, then so be it.
The only way to become a better street photographer is to go out and shoot.
emasterphoto
10-26-2011, 22:56
Instead you put a label on him and basically said if it's from him, it's not worth looking. That speaks loudly about your attitude.
That's a prideful attitude, Damen.
Engaging our brain without being balanced with a good attitude will end up making us look like, sound like, and may eventually turn us into an arrogant person.
Or is that exactly what you want and believe?
Not to be an Internet Champion of Justice or anything, but I think you're really mis-interpreting the comment Damen made. When I read it I took it as a stated opinion of Eric Kim which implied that it was based on some personal experience with Kim's work. I don't see anything arrogant about it at all; it simply implies a negative impression of Mr. Kim which is perfectly fine and within Damen's right to state.
For what it's worth though, I agree with Damen. Eric Kim is basically the Ken Rockwell of street photography - a guy who quit his day job to become a "Professional Street Photographer", which from looking at his output to date means that he spends his days writing blogs and trying to get people to attend his workshops. He does shoot obviously, but it's pretty mediocre work I feel. He basically regurgitates forum rhetoric like this article that appeals to the masses of wannabes and generates hits on his site and workshop signup page. I mean, his article stated that one of the benefits of film was that it allowed him to get "much more saturated colors which look natural", yet the included pics are all fairly desaturated and lacking adequate contrast.
By contrast, lower-key photogs like the self-labled "alcoholic photographer" Yamasaki Ko-ji (http://www.yamasakiko-ji.com/archives.php) are producing better and more fascinating street work everyday, with less gear, and even lesser fanfare.
That said, Kim's probably a decent guy, but his reknown I think has more to do with his web marketing than photogrpahic skill.
I said this on another thread but will say it again here.
I shoot Film because I like RF cameras and can't afford RF digitals, that's all.
Saving for an X100 maybe?
japancamerahunter
11-01-2011, 15:22
To be fair guys, he is young (only 23) and has a lot to learn. Eric is a good mate and I will be doing a workshop with him in Tokyo in December. He does say and write some silly things sometimes, but what he lacks in knowledge he makes up for in boundless enthusiasm and energy. I have never met anyone who is so excited about street photography.
I think that honestly he is going to improve a great deal over time, so I take some of what he writes with a pinch of salt.
Thanks
Japancamerahunter
To be fair guys, he is young (only 23) and has a lot to learn. Eric is a good mate and I will be doing a workshop with him in Tokyo in December. He does say and write some silly things sometimes, but what he lacks in knowledge he makes up for in boundless enthusiasm and energy. I have never met anyone who is so excited about street photography.
I think that honestly he is going to improve a great deal over time, so I take some of what he writes with a pinch of salt.
Thanks
Japancamerahunter
Thanks for the background information!
I wish you good luck for your japancamerahunter website ( I visit it regularly....:)).
Greetings from Europe, Jan
To be fair guys, he is young (only 23) and has a lot to learn. Eric is a good mate and I will be doing a workshop with him in Tokyo in December. He does say and write some silly things sometimes, but what he lacks in knowledge he makes up for in boundless enthusiasm and energy. I have never met anyone who is so excited about street photography.
I think that honestly he is going to improve a great deal over time, so I take some of what he writes with a pinch of salt.
Thanks
Japancamerahunter
Nice response.
To be honest I'll be the first to give him a hand on his enthusiasm and web savviness in marketing himself. Although I do believe his images can (and no doubt will) improve, what he's doing is spreading that drug we call street photography to others new to the genre.
shadowfox
11-02-2011, 13:10
Eric Kim ? No, I'm not critiquing him, nor have I said that if it is Eric Kim, you must not look. I have said that I will not look if it is Eric Kim, and if you believe that this personal preference is somehow indicative of a defective attitute or is an indefensible position of mine, then I would suggest your attitude is clearly one of believing you can control my personal preference and my ability to voice said preference.
What I DID critique however, was your "logic" when you stated "Sometime I really wish to see some of the members here who post highly critical statements about others would show us how good they really are... y'know, with pictures, not mere words".
As I pointed out, this is an incredibly arrogant (prideful) attitude in which only someone whose photography has "merit" (presumably assessed by you), is able to express an opinion. This is elitist and dangerous and is clearly illogical, as it would lead to a veritable cornucopia of ridiculous situations if actually applied in real life (you can only say you don't like a movie on a forum once you have submitted a movie you have made which proves you worthy to make any assessment. You can only criticise a baseball batsman after showing how adept you are at facing a fastball yourself). The fact that you would suggest opinions are invalid without the provision of evidence of a person's "worth" in an allied field is, as I said, elitist and wrong in my opinion. If you believe my disagreeing with you is evidence of arrogance and pride, then so be it.
Damen,
It is wrong of me to think I can make someone realize how they come across in an internet forum. And I am including myself in the that statement :)
Rather than fanning the flame, I apologize for my sharp reply and hopefully we both can walk out of this without hard feelings.
Thank you for the lesson.
bulevardi
11-03-2011, 08:06
I always thought, the more digital, the better.
The higher the megapixel, the better the streetphotographer ;)
Shooting film will make you a better lover!
bulevardi
11-03-2011, 08:09
Anyway, whatever camera you use, film or digital.
It's not always the result that counts, it's the use of the camera you have to like, if you're zen with camera X, keep using that camera.
And photography is all about the journey, not only the destination counts.
Two reason film is better than digital.
1) Greater Dynamic range (other than slide film)
2) No Chimping (You have to learn your craft)
Out side of that there the same, SLR vs DLSR, RF vs DRF, same.
celluloidprop
12-03-2011, 17:04
I was shooting 95% digital since a D70 circa 2004-5 until recently, now I'm still heavily on the digital side but I've got 70 rolls of Tri-X, HP5 and Neopan 400 around to work my way through. Bought a Epson V700 and set it up this week to start digitizing negatives, will probably get a Plustek down the road to get more out of 35mm.
But I have to say, I still firmly appreciate digital. It's a sunk cost, meaning that every frame from purchase onward is essentially free for experimentation. That doesn't mean using a high-end dSLR and cranking up fps to shoot everything willy-nilly, but I take chances in digital that I don't with film, where each frame ranges from $.35 to $1 or so (6x9). And there is something to be said about extra free 'coverage' - different angles, moving around a subject to try different light/compositions/etc..
Digital also comprises a fast feedback loop - I can see images in Lightroom minutes after shooting, start editing, etc.. And I'm sure it's partially my scanning process and intimacy with the digital process, but I simply have more control over my images using LR/PS/Silver Efex Pro/Color Efex Pro than I do scanning in B&W film. I'm also not sure the V700 ultimately has the dynamic range to make scanned film that much superior to contemporary digital in highlight/shadow detail.
If I had access to a darkroom at home and an easy way to develop my own film here (I was seriously considering a new drying cabinet from B&H or somewhere...), reducing costs and giving me more direct control over the process in a traditional manner, I could see getting to a 50/50 split digital/film - but so long as I don't, I imagine myself leaning heavily digital.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.