Making Sense of Film Photography

Digital photography. It is so simple, anyone can do it. Grandparents can do it. Little children can do it. Woefully challenged people with no technical sense can do it. People of all age, gender, and background can do it. It is easy. And because it is easy, it is also fun. I mean, what can be more fun than getting that photo you want with absolute certainty? No guesswork involved. No talent. No need for experience. It is just pointing and shooting with all the thinking done by the wired and coded gizzards of your gizmo - and voilà - a sure thing on-screen.

But, what is the point of a sure thing? The thrill of any undertaking is the possibility of failing. I mean, what kind of triumph can come without overcoming adversities? Succeeding from certainty is hollow. Given that, there’s nothing so sweet as a hard won photograph. To actually capture a photo that firmly stands on its own two feet, without the crutch of certainty, is the most accomplishing end for anyone hustling for that perfect shot. To me, a sure thing is overrated. Thus, I have eschewed digital photography in favor of the analog road less traveled.

Giving up a sure thing for a little thrill… how chic… how retro. Film photography is the remedy that exposes me to the possibility of failure. It bestows onto me street creds in the hipster’s ethos of authenticity. I mean, taking photos with film offers me none of the crutches of certainty. It’s just me, my talents, and experience against an ever changing world in-frame. And after all my troubles, the photos I seek without any certainty materializes in developed frames ready to be digitized. Oh, how very authentic we are to turn analog photos into digital files.

ISO 400 Film of Unknown Provenance & Questionable Storage @ 35mm Focal Length - Pushed to ISO 800 by accident 😖

ISO 400 Film of Unknown Provenance & Questionable Storage @ 35mm Focal Length

How else are we suppose to see it? Moreover, how else are we to share it? You really do not expect us to print our photos and show them in real life, a person at a time? But, how else are we to show our printed photos? At a gallery? In a public space? During a social gathering? In a magazine? Or, in a book? Of course not! We need to show our photos online. If we can’t, we won’t be able to show them without institutional backing or editorial oversight. As such, what is the point of taking photos with film if we have to digitize them for online viewing?

Fundamentally, on-screen photo viewing over the internet has turned film photography into an anachronism. I mean, the process almost always omits darkroom printing - since the needed output is for on-screen viewing that requires digitization of developed film. Thus, what is the point of shooting in film? In the end, the output of film is still digital photography - albeit by way of shooting film. As such, logic would dictate that going through the extra step of shooting in film would be a complete waste of time - seeing that the ends are both the same.

Hence, would it not make better sense to just sidestep the whole messy and time consuming affair of taking photos in film, and dive directly into the comfort of digital imaging? Like I have already stated, our photos are really intended for on-screen viewing. For that reason, are we not just kidding ourselves to believe that we are actually taking analog photos when the images we capture will end up online? I mean, that is wishful thinking. Because the photos we take end up online in a digital format, we are still just going through a digital process.

Moreover, it is not as if we do not process our digitized film photos without more digital intervention. We make improvements to all our images with software to reach heights never before enjoyed by our knuckle-dragging predecessors, slugging away under the red light, countdown clock, and developing trays. We can fine tune all our images by imbuing them with the perfect exposure, contrast, and saturation with just a click of the mouse. Simple. There is none of that pesky waving of one’s two hands or cardboard template under the enlarger light.

And, if we are still not satisfied with the fine tuning, we can then further manipulate our images to a whole new degree of fabrication. We can snip and trim off the bits we do not want in-frame. On top of that, we can add on bits and pieces we did not have in frame. We can create a completely different picture, with different subjects, different settings, and different moments in time. Plus, if we are not satisfied with the results, we can just click undo to a past saved version as oppose to restarting the entire darkroom printing process from start to finish.

Nay I say. Film photography is for the birds. If the end is indeed a digital output, then burdening ourselves with the extra steps of developing and digitization does seem conspicuously indulgent - if not a complete waste of time. For any of us holdouts to stick loyally to film, there must be a substantive reason for us to continue, given the aforementioned encumbrances. This is an online world. Even if we print our own photos in a darkroom, we must still digitize the final print on a flatbed scanner. There’s no way around a digital intervention to get online.

But then, there is the assertion that film photographers can have greater variance in documentation, given the selection of different film stock, all with noticeable differences in rendering. Some film were designed to have more saturation, some more contrast, and some more bias in skin tones. In short, the expanse of film varieties is too many to list. Thus, analog photographers do have the advantage of more options in rendering from film than from fixed digital sensors. Mind you, that would be true if film variety were really that abundant anymore.

Since the popular proliferation of digital imaging, the once vast expanse of film varieties has whittled-down to a handful of holdouts. The assertion that film variety offers variance in rendering is no longer really valid, since film varieties are no longer a vast expanse that’s too many to mention. It is not like we have Agfa Ultra, Optima, and Portrait or Kodachrome anymore. For that reason, what’s the point of shooting in film if the only choice we have between film varieties is quickly becoming Kodak Portra or a handful of different black and white films?

Given that the only argument in support of film photography is essentially a moot point, it only makes sense to let go of our romantic clutching to a bygone era and find our way back to the digital road more traveled. There is very little variation between different film in our present day analog desert. End of the story. Because of that, film photography is really just a fad - a fashionable diversion practiced by urban hipsters residing in gentrified neighborhoods. With that being the case, film photography is vain, superficial, and meaningless in substance.

Perhaps, that may be true for some. That said, I do not strike myself as a shallow kind of photographer. When I think back to why I made the switch to shoot exclusively in film, fashion did not enter the equation. Strangely, I began to shoot in film because my film photos were horrible. I needed to redeem myself. So, I got back on the saddle again. It drove me crazy to relearn what I had forgotten from years of digital abuse. Getting me back to shoot at my pre-digital form was a long and bumpy journey. But when I got there, it was well worth the effort.

There is something deeply hands-on about shooting in film. It involves every part of us. Shooting in film keeps us on our toes because it compels us to become more connected to the photo taking process. We don’t have the comfort of automation to aid us. As such, we must constantly and continuously be aware of every relevant factor involved in taking a proper photo. I mean, it is not as if we have the luxury of second chances to retake a bad photo spotted in review. Thus, we become conditioned to make every one of our thirty-six shots count.

Ultimately, shooting in film makes us better photographers. It emboldens us to believe in ourselves. It is a truly wonderful feeling to trust our own skills and judgment. Fact is, there is no better feeling - to believe we can do no wrong. Film photography is self affirming. As such, shooting in film is a pursuit we do for ourselves. I shoot film for me and not for anybody else. Thus, I decide. I even decide when my photos are shared, since I decide when the film is developed. With film, there is none of that pesky instant replaying for eager demanding eyes.

So in making sense of film photography, I can see why those of us who shoot film are so committed to it. Film photography is just plain selfish. It is not about thrills, film varieties, or being hip. It is about me. Fact is, there is no better motivation to shoot film than to feel good about me being me doing me. I suppose that is why those of us taking the analog road less traveled seldom ever go back to the digital road more traveled. Plainly, it just feels too good to stay on course with a roll of film.

Still, a case could be made for shooting film of unknown provenance and questionable storage as a reason to shoot in film. I would like to see a digital sensor end up with the unique rendering of this photo set. Such is the benefit of uncertainty. And, it is so much more fun and rewarding when the photos turn out - well - sort of 😉

Special thanks to Ania for accompanying me on this photowalk.

Disclaimer

Dec 5 Making Sense of Film Photography

Disclaimer

Dec 5 Making Sense of Film Photography

Dec 6 Leica 90mm f/1.5 Summilux-M ASPH - Analog Edition

Dec 4 Film as an Asset Class