Film Photography: Debunking Common Misconceptions in 2024
I read always the same when it comes to film photography
A premise:
I have many film cameras. Until two years ago, although not very often, I photographed with film, enjoying the experience. A clarification is necessary: I have never developed. This is because my experience as a photographer, although it began as a 10-year-old child, has always been based on developing in a trusted laboratory. This habit has become the acquisition of a process that, even in digital, for me ends at the moment of recognizing a photograph and pressing the shutter button. I know that for many photographers this corresponds to a lack of complete experience on my part. But as a photographer I have always preferred what I see is what I want to achieve, with as few filters as possible. Obviously, I apply this to the extreme even with digital:
No crop
No film simulations in camera
No heavy post process
Just a little bit of contrast some time, but usually light adjustements
Through the choice of certain cameras and, above all, certain settings that I apply to them, I am able to obtain a result that is quite organic and quite similar to film photographs.For this reason I state that “film photography is a mindset”.
In the age of digital dominance, film photography has experienced a resurgence, captivating enthusiasts with its nostalgic charm and tangible process. To contribute to this new golden era for film influencers on YouTube showing the process with film cameras from the experience of shooting to load a roll of film, put on a camera and show the workflow in the darkroom. Anything looks pretty cool and of course the charm of film photography is different and effective for those hipsters among us. Another clarification: I don’t have anything against the definition of hipster, I don’t have a bird but for many aspects I could be also a hipster, I like many vintage things respect to the modern.
However, some misconceptions surround the choice to shoot film over digital. In this blog post, we'll explore and debunk some common beliefs associated with film photography, highlighting the essence of this traditional art form.
Shooting film means taking fewer photos; the issue is not digital photography, it's you: Many argue that shooting film inherently results in slowing down, making fewer shots, and that those favoring this approach are merely averse to the prolific nature of digital photography. In reality, the number of shots one takes is a matter of personal preference and discipline. The medium doesn't dictate one's ability to control the shutter; it's the photographer's mindset and approach that determine the quantity of shots taken. To me is quite the opposite: sometimes in film I force more, especially with the last shots available in a roll. But hey is just me exactly how for the others is digital the medium where you make more shots.
Film photos have a unique look that digital photos lack; you just don't know how to process them well: Some believe that the distinctive aesthetic of film photography is unattainable in the digital realm. However, this misconception arises from a lack of understanding of digital post-processing. The truth is, with the right skills and software, digital photos can be edited to emulate the rich tones, grain, and textures characteristic of film. It's not about the medium; it's about the photographer's mastery of the tools at their disposal. And it is a controversial topic too by the moment there are photographers making now post production using VSCO for example to add more film to….film shots. As I said: film photography is a mindset. Sometimes I see my digital photos that are more filmy than many photos made with film.
I enjoy the process of developing film; it's about the journey, not the final image: For some, the joy of film photography lies in the tactile and immersive process of developing the film. While this sentiment is valid, it's essential to recognize that others may prioritize the end result – the captivating image. The preference for one aspect over the other doesn't diminish the artistic value; it simply reflects different perspectives within the photographic community. I prefer to have more time to shoot. And this is applied not making darkroom work in both cases, digital and film. And to the end, yes, the final image is what counts. And this is crucial to print.
I am a film photographer but not printing most of the time: The essence of film photography is not confined to the physical print but extends to the entire process, from composition to development and digitization. But, I am sorry I don’t get the sense to use film cameras and then only having digitized images. An image digitized is always a digital image. And a digital image is not a photograph, but just something you are going to use digitally. I believe that a photograph exists really only when printed, on photographic paper, dibond, canvas or a book. Many lost the sense of a photograph as a physical object and this is part of the issue I see today. Something scanned is always a digital image. With that said if someone enjoy to use film and then no printing OK, but if you aks me I am always for prints, no matters if from digital or film medium: prints give us the physical understanding of a photograph.
Conclusion: While film photography has experienced a renaissance, it's essential to dispel misconceptions that may discourage or misinform aspiring enthusiasts. Whether you prefer the tactile process, the unique aesthetic, or the disciplined approach of film photography, the key lies in appreciating the diverse ways photographers express their art. Ultimately, the choice between film and digital is a matter of personal preference (and money), and both mediums offer rich opportunities for creativity and self-expression. The film photography experience is the best schhol of photography you can take. With that said I think there are inconsistencies and elitist attitudes that should be dissolved.
If I ask if the photos you see published in this post are film, digital, or one film and the other digital someone will answer correct, others don’t. Is that important? I don’t think so. It can be important the experience and the pleasure you can receive to make a particular activity. It is a personal thing: I prefer the act of shooting while I get bored to edit my photos with a processing software. For this reason I limit as much as possible that. This approach doesn't make me less professional or worse than other photographers, just different. Art is free and there is no best and universal method of doing things, there is only the method that works for us and we can also have the right to change it during our lifetime.
