Old school

bubblebobble

bubblebobble

bubblebobble

Associate
Joined
16 Feb 2008
Posts
307
Location
Staffordshire
Hi guys,

I have been reading threads here for many months now but I am really disappointed to notice little if anything about the art of old school photography.
What I mean is the use of film emulsions, no one seems to use roll film anymore especially with the advent of digital imaging.
I did my degree in film, photography and animation also an MA and a BIPP.
I feel the digital guys are missing out big time in the art of photo-processing etc.
For instance I can still remember the first time I dropped that piece of paper into the developer and saw that image appear.......fantastic!
I remember making actual film emulsions from raw chemicals......ok the image produced ala Daguerreotype took like over 10 minutes to expose as the emulsion we produced was so slow, but it was still an achievement.
Obviously the optics side of things still remains the same , for example the inverse square law is applied to any light source.
I am also sure things like sensitometry are probably of little importance as plotting gammas etc from a photograph or scene would all be done using Photoshop nowadays...maybe Iam wrong?
Then there is the experience of slide film, what an experience to stand up inside a theatre shining a light through a piece of celluloid, the image dances.
What about Lithographs?....bet they are all done through photoshop again, no skill in that.
Anyway after being in that business for a number of years and actually working on some pretty cool projects, most of which did see print I conclude the digital boys ( not all oof them) perhaps rely to much on technology to help out with their skills; where as the darkroom was our friend it seems photoshop is theres.
 
Last edited:
I think i was on a reminisce this evening. After putting up a couple of pics from my digital compact camera in the photo post yesterday I decided to pull out my old Canon (didn't realise it was mine, thought it was my dads old camera) EOS650 (with film still in it) to have a wee fiddle with it before upgrading to a DSLR in the next few weeks. Reminded me of my photography course that I did at school years ago and even using my dads old dark room at the back of the garage. Nothing quite like developing your own prints rather than a bit of manipulation on a pc after taking the pic. :)
 
For those who do it for a hobby there is no reason not to have a good dabble in film. Though unfortunately you're still fighting the tide. Films are being produced less, good developers are becoming more scarce and expensive, and there really is only so many times you'll stand over a tray agitating back and forth before you say "To photoshop!" :D

If you're going into business however, unless you're specifically fine art, you have to learn digital. And with the amount of DSLRs etc out there now, you have to spend more time with it getting better than everyone else. Another reason you see so much of it about, its just far far easier to distribute! A lot of people on here may still do a lot of film work, but its not as easy getting it online as "Image size / 800px / save / upload", so it often remains the private preserve on the walls instead.
 
totally disagree with nearly all your statements.

1) I am not involved with the industry anymore so do not need to "fight the tide"
2) "learn digital"?, I see that as a somewhat strange statement; the digital camera has made it far easier for "amateurs" to try and become something they are not.
However digital photography, along with digital manipulation via PS etc has given a certain amount of technical ability to untrained people in the area of optics etc; but they still are unable to grasp to fundamentals of the camera.
I see this here all the time, too many people are trying to pass themselves off as photographers all the time............
but what is the defination of a photographer?
Yes I agree anyone who would take a photograph could be construed as one.

there is no denying the fact that digital photography plays an important part of for example photo-journalist; it would be lost without it now( I would have loved it in China and the Sudan).

What it boils down too is the understanding of the image, the ability to produce an image in the subconcious and act on it.

I believe that a lot is being lost and I am only in my 30s.
 
I know its not “real” photography but the one place digital photograph has made a huge impact is the copying of documents.
It us to take me 5 hrs to transcribe 50 pages of research material at The National Archive.
Now I can shot 1800-1900 pages in the same time. Film could'nt compete.

However I do believe that bubblebobble has a valid point some digital photography has the feel of "painting by numbers"
In the right hands and with limited use of PS it has become a real art form. Many showing their work here are testermony to that.
 
I suspect many are simply too young to have been sufficiently interested in film photography when a fantastic new world of digital photography was emerging(?)

Perhaps a little like asking someone to record on tape when they are accustomed to recording to CD.

Don't worry Bubblebobble, I have a minimal film portfolio,...albeit from years back though:o
 
RoleyBirkin said:
I suspect many are simply too young to have been sufficiently interested in film photography when a fantastic new world of digital photography was emerging(?)

Perhaps a little like asking someone to record on tape when they are accustomed to recording to CD.

Don't worry Bubblebobble, I have a minimal film portfolio,...albeit from years back though:o
Click to expand...

yes, but the point is .. why would anyone want to record a tape when they have CD's....

its been and gone.. film... thing of the past.. its just the way it goes..

i dont think anyone has "missed out" just because they didnt partake in a dying art..
 
I've only just started out in photography and gone straight to DSLR. Digital is so so much easier to use than film, so much so that I personally couldn't hack learning to use a film SLR. For what I mainly shoot (motorsport) I need to be able to view the image back immediatley to see if what I am shooting is going to turn out. For this reason I don't think i'd ever use film.

Photoshop f t w :p
 
I spent time in the darkroom as a youngster and had some good instruction from teachers but having been away from photography for some time, digitial is allowing me much more freedom and immediacy and is a real pleasure. I am learning again and enjoying it but make no claims to being a good photographer.

I am sure the OP makes some valid points but is also at risk of sounding somewhat like a luddite. Before we all go out and burn our spinning jennys let's remember that photoshop and digital is allowing more people to embrace photography and get good results, is that a problem?
 
Paulus said:
photoshop is an art too... to do it well...
Click to expand...
yeah i'm sort of joking. i've seen good use of photoshop, but so often its done badly or overdone so much that things look cartoony. i've used it a few times to fix exposures a bit or remove some grain to good effect. i'm currently veryyy amateur, hopefully i'll get better and stop underexposing
 
Last edited:
Paulus said:
yes, but the point is .. why would anyone want to record a tape when they have CD's....
Click to expand...
Perhaps those people are unconfident using [or have no confidence in] technology, e.g. as has been mentioned, a Luddite.

Couldn't really say for definite( bad example perhaps tbh), just playing devil's advocate briefly!;)
 
Interesting topic, one i've seen raised many times on different forums..

I have a friend who is an extremley good landscape/portrait photographer, who up until recently used nothing other than film, mainly Large/Medium format. He has built a 900mm F3.5 lens, (yes it weighs 56lbs lol) owns lenses from WWII spy planes, and is really into his old school photography.
He has his own darkroom and develops his own shots, and he's very very good at it..

You could class myself as the opposite, I've owned a few film cameras but like so many others, I got on with digital like a duck to water.. I don't claim to be a geek who knows everything there is to know about getting a perfect exposure, as I find most of that side of things pretty boring, however I enjoy taking my images and i've recently got into doing my own printing which I also enjoy very much. I do get a real buzz using a full digital workflow from start to finish and watching a great A2 print emerge from the printer.

Does it make him any more of a photographer than me? Sure he knows an enormous amount about how to meter a scene for a large format exposure, setting the shot up and getting it right... But on the flipside, I can pick out something that looks good and absail into a rocky cove, balance on rocks in the incoming tide to get a shot in twilight 30 mins after sundown, like I did yesterday... that makes photography for me.

I class the camera as a tool to capture an image that you see. Whether its film/digital/whatever, or whether its a thought out landscape/portrait composition, or fast action luck/capture at the end of the day as photographers, surely we all have a common goal?
I think people who moan about digital taking over and losing the soul of what *real photography* is about, are perhaps the ones losing their way a little, and have become lost with what photography is really about, and that is capturing stunning images regardless of the format used.
 
Last edited:
But on the flipside, I can pick out something that looks good and absail into a rocky cove, balance on rocks in the incoming tide to get a shot in twilight 30 mins after sundown, like I did yesterday... that makes photography for me.
Click to expand...

id like to see that shot!
 
V-Spec said:
But on the flipside, I can pick out something that looks good and absail into a rocky cove, balance on rocks in the incoming tide to get a shot in twilight 30 mins after sundown, like I did yesterday... that makes photography for me.
Click to expand...

Damnit, I need to learn to abseil... the number of times I've come close to falling to my death trying to get a view over the edge of a cliff at 10mm is worryingly high!
 
bubblebobble said:
totally disagree with nearly all your statements.

1) I am not involved with the industry anymore so do not need to "fight the tide"
2) "learn digital"?, I see that as a somewhat strange statement; the digital camera has made it far easier for "amateurs" to try and become something they are not.
However digital photography, along with digital manipulation via PS etc has given a certain amount of technical ability to untrained people in the area of optics etc; but they still are unable to grasp to fundamentals of the camera.
I see this here all the time, too many people are trying to pass themselves off as photographers all the time............
but what is the defination of a photographer?
Yes I agree anyone who would take a photograph could be construed as one.

there is no denying the fact that digital photography plays an important part of for example photo-journalist; it would be lost without it now( I would have loved it in China and the Sudan).

What it boils down too is the understanding of the image, the ability to produce an image in the subconcious and act on it.

I believe that a lot is being lost and I am only in my 30s.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, calm down :p

a) Whether you are involved in the industry or not does not mean there is still not a tide to fight. You're asking why more people aren't doing film, i'm giving you a reason. You can't really disagree, it's widely held fact. Film is dying.
b) Yes, 'Learn' digital. You seem to hold this opinion that digital work is somehow inferior to film due to it's ease of post manipulation, which is just rubbish, and insulting to all those creating fantastic work with it. For one, there is nothing to stop you scanning film in, and 2, If it were that easy, we'de all be taking photos like our idles. The sheer fact we're all sat about on here talking about it more than likely means we're not. So yes, learn.. Whilst the end product may be the same, with digital it's a different way of getting there. You don't pick up a DSLR and know how to make good photographs. The general impression i'm getting from this part of your post is that you're not a true photographer if you've never shot film, which is also rubbish. I have a large place in my heart for 35 and 120 tranny, and have shot a lot of great work with it, so does having a large place in my head for digital make me less of a photographer? No.

I'm getting a strong whiff of elitism. The same elitism so many photographers had before finally giving up film and moving to digital. You can fear change or move with it. The ones who moved with it are the same people leaders in there respective fields because they recognized the importance of digital photography in this age, the ones who didn't are all sat about on forums whining long live film :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom