My great heresy

3

I love my LC-A. Let me restate that so that there is no question. I have a real, Russian, LC-A that I absolutely love taking pictures with. I have a Holga modified to shoot from the hip. I have a Yashica Electro GSN. My Rollei B35 is a mechanical marvel. My Pen EED brings a smile to my face in half frame. Then, there is the first one I ever purchased. The one that started it all for me. My Lubitel 166B. Total, I’ve spent $850 on all these cameras. Film is now approx $12.50 (U.S.) per roll. Outfitting all of these with film costs almost $80. Having each roll developed and scanned (so that I can put it on my camera) costs $20. That’s $120 to develop a roll from all six cameras. So, I spend $850 to buy cameras, and $200 for film, development, and digitization. I have it digitized to put on my computer so that I can make things out of it (from websites to mugs).

I purchased two used Olympus Pen E-PL2’s, a 14-42mm lens (28-84mm 35mm equivalent), and a 17mm lens (34mm, 35mm equivalent). Total cost was $800. I’m adding a Holga lens ($20), and a pinhole lens ($30). I’m purchasing Tiffen dfx 3.0 for Aperture. It will do all the various popular films (apply the film characteristics of different manufacturers film, including one’s I can no longer get anywhere, to a digital image), and processing techniques (like cross process). Cost is $199.95. The reason I have two E-PL2 bodies is because I want to make one functional in the Infrared spectrum.

Now the rub: I don’t have to spend any more money to take pictures. I will have replaced every lomo camera I own, the need to buy film, and the need to process, for one flat cost.

I totally get the love of film. I REALLY do. My concern is this: have you noticed the cost of film going up? That’s due to dwindling supply. The more scarce something is, the more it costs to get. Basic rule of economics and all that. I wonder if the best use of resources is to support film. Granted, not all art forms make the best use of resources. It’s art, it doesn’t have to. All I’m saying is, with the cost of film sky rocketing is it acceptable to be able to do the same thing digitally (so that the product of the art form isn’t lost)?

Here’s where I see a hole in the logic of “an analog future.” What process do you the reader use to get your film based pictures on this website? You scan them. That means you digitize them. A scanner is a digital camera folks. You can find directions on line how to convert a scanner to a large format digital camera. Same principle, slightly different execution is all. If people weren’t using digital devices to take “pictures” of their film “pictures”, this website wouldn’t exist.

I love my film cameras. I won’t sell my LC-A or Rollei B35. Ever. On occasion it’s fun to use film. However, the rest of the cameras are going on E-Bay/Etsy over the next week. I’m having so much fun with my E-PL2, I don’t have time to worry about the rest of my cameras. Sad? Why, at the end of the day, a scanned picture and a picture from a digital camera look the same on a computer screen. Hipstamatic makes prints of my square frame pics, snapfish makes prints of my rectangular frame pics, and Apple produces nice books, calendars, and cards.

Digital things allow me to share my pictures with the world. If I can’t share with anyone I want to, that makes this whole thing the equivalent of masterbation, doesn’t it?

written by wn7ant on 2011-12-22

3 Comments

  1. dinospork
    dinospork ·

    I think that if your primary interest is in producing things, digital makes a lot more sense than film. It's just cheaper (but come on, $12 a roll? Shop around a little), and there's no way around that.

    On the other hand, I don't think I completely believe that you can do with digital what you can do with film, effects and photoshop and what have you notwithstanding. You can simulate analog with digital, but it's still a simulation, and I think that anybody who has looked at thousands of real analog photos will be able to tell the difference, just like musicians who use tube amps can tell when they're listening to a tube amp and when they're listening to digital modeling of a tube amp.

    I guess the biggest difference I see, though, is in the experience of shooting film vs. digital. The thing about things being cheaper is that they also end up being less valuable. There's something different about about how I shoot when I know that not only can I not take it back, but I won't even know until much later if it turned out the way I wanted. This makes the whole act of shooting film more compelling. You're making an investment every time you open the shutter, and it's either a safe investment or a risky one. If taking pictures is what interests you about photography, there isn't really any way to digitally model the inherent thrill of shooting film.

    Regardless of all that, I wish you luck in your digital endeavors, and personally, I'd love to see the results.

  2. wn7ant
    wn7ant ·

    dinospork,

    Thank you for your well thought out response. We agree on the first paragraph you wrote (digital is for producing things, paraphrased).

    On the second paragraph, I'd like to explain where I disagree with you, and why. You mention that digital can simulate analog, but that a "real" professional can tell the difference. Here's why I would disagree with you, the formulas (the mathematics) used to create digital effects, are analog. They are modeled and used in a digital system. The human eye can only distinguish 21 bits of color. Computers exceeded this years ago.

    Let's say I take a picture with my lubitel166b, and have a soft focus filter on it. I take the film and get it developed (using a correct, standard process, i.e. a machine does it). I then have the resulting negative scanned. This would produce a digital image.

    For comparison, I use my Pen E-PL2 and set it to square frame using the same aperture, film speed, and shutter speed. I take the same picture. I import the resulting image into Aperture and use my Tiffen DFX v3 Filter software on it. I open the raw picture file and change the "film type" to match what was in the Lubitel. I then set the soft focus filter. I export an image that has the exact same resolution as the picture above (same file type too).

    I print both pics using the same printer, on the same piece of photo paper. I hand them to 20 photographers/graphic artists/etc..

    You really believe that they would be able to tell which pic was digital, and which was analog with better that 50% accuracy?

    I completely, and whole heartedly agree with you on the third paragraph you wrote.

  3. dinospork
    dinospork ·

    @wn7ant I honestly have no idea if I would be able to tell the difference, to say nothing of photographers with some training or other bona fides. I'd actually kind of like to find out, just out of curiosity.

    Your point about scanning analog images is well taken. I actually remember feeling more than a little bit like a sucker spending money on my scanner, knowing that it was all money that was going toward turning analog into digital, when I knew perfectly well that I had a device designed specifically for that purpose (my DSLR) sitting on the shelf. It doesn't bother me now, though, which I explain by invoking the points I made in my third paragraph. I'm strictly a hobbyist and an amateur, so for me it's all about the experience of shooting.

    Of course, there's the whole analog printing process that we haven't discussed...I'm 90% sure that I could tell the difference between an analog print and a digital print of the same picture better than 50% of the time, but those claims are pretty meaningless, since I haven't printed using a real enlarger for a couple of decades.