Film, Fuji X, and why I don't care.

[Geotheo]

I shot film from 1955 - 2000 switching to digital in 2001 and I've never looked back. Don't miss it one bit!

[Nero]

I never shot film except when my parents would buy me a couple disposable cameras on vacation when I was little kid and did all of my photography with an iPhone until I got an X-T1 in March 2014. I wanted to learn photography on my own, especially because I had my MFA thesis show coming up in May 2015 (graduated!) and wanted to do my own, professional documentation of my other work. There were A LOT of people who I encountered who said "Oh, you've got to learn on film if you really want to be serious about it." That was BS, at least for my learning style. The important thing for me was having manual dials to consciously manipulate. I already had a good sense of composition being an artist, so I started on full auto and then progressively took camera functions back to manual in stages of "rules" for myself until I was shooting all manual.

 

A big point for a lot of people is "you need to learn by failing" and film is the obvious way to do that because you have to get things right to get a good photograph. I disagree. I think it's better to fail in the first look at the RAW straight out of the camera, but then consciously work through the steps to salvage it digitally. I'm a very patient person and I've criticized the impatience of my students over the years while I've been teaching design, but impatience toward failure is so ingrained in so many of the current incoming college freshmen that it's probably here to stay and putting a film camera in the hands of a beginning student could derail brilliant potential. If I were going to teach a beginning photography college course, in an ideal world they would all be handed an X-T1. Film would be optional.

 

Recently, I traded my 18-55 to a friend for a film camera and a set of 3 nice vintage Olympus lenses after I got the 18-135 and a selection of primes. I got an adapter for them and I also plan on trying a little film, but I feel no nostalgia for it whatsoever.

[milandro]

I am not sure whether having shot much film gives me the possibility ( or the authority) to say whether “ film” per se was any “ better” than digital files, let alone to say whether Fuji got it “ better” than anyone else.

 

The mediums are different enough to be, in my not so humble opinion, impossible to compare. I don’t think that it is “ necessary” to have worked with film to learn photography.

 

Most of us don’t even print ( much, any or  anyone at all ) their digital files and only ever look at the majority of their pictures on a screen rather than in print. The results are so different that I feel comparison is often pointless.

 

As for Fuji getting it better than other digital cameras with their sensors, in all truth I am “ just” (pre)occupying myself with making pictures and let the pixel scrutiny to those who have an inclination to do so.

 

I don’t.

[Aswald]

A question for those that have used film. Do you feel that Fuji, above all other companies, has mostly gotten it right with their X-Trans sensor? If you do notice any shortcomings, what are they?

 

When shooting film, I always enjoyed the luxury of choosing between Kodak, Fujifilm, IIford or Agfa. Depending on what I shot or the end result I was looking for, I would choose appropriately. Nowadays, without post processing, Digital cameras have taken away that option for majority of shooters. Moving forward to the very near futire, most general photographers will forget the magic of having those options and the magic of having a preset film effect.

 

Fujifilm / X-Trans sensor offers me a different perspective and overall look. Editing in Jpeg can give a somewhat smoother, more "organic" result than say compared to a canon equivalent. This sometimes translate to a more intimate photograph for me. It brings back the notion of shooting with a different roll of film in my camera. As I shoot mostly for pleasure, I must admit, it's a nice option to have and a great experience to revisit.

[milandro]

on the other hand now we have so many different options in terms of PP software that one could conceivably treat those as the “ film” choice we once had.

 

Anyway, as I said, different medium.

[guy.gend]

I liken that kind of thing to telling people that they need to go try aol dial-up internet so that they can experience the sound of a modem connecting and slow down their internet experience so that their clicks will be more thought out.

 

I have no intention of going back to film, and I'm not trying to change your mind, but the analogy is flawed. Film isn't just slower, it is a different technology with different methods and results. It is more like the difference between sculpting with clay by hand, and 3D printing.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[guy.gend]

There is no functional link between physical control dials and film, only a historical one. Electronic control layouts evolved with digital, not because of digital.

 

Physical controls are just as valid now as they were 40 years ago. It is just a matter of preference. I prefer physical controls because I like to see what my settings are without even having to pick the camera up or turn it on. I also think they look cool.

 

Most DSLRs are a blobular ugly mess to my eyes. As a result I find it more embarrassing than satisfying to hang one on my neck.

 

Also, I don't use any in-camera film simulations, and I usually process to monochrome so colors aren't critical for me.

 

So to answer your question, I don't like Fujis because they remind me of film, but because they work the way I do and look good doing it.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[abjurina]

My post title was misleading, I guess. I just wanted to see if there were any other Fuji fans here like myself who were attracted to Fuji gear but had no history with film. In was thinking that I was unusual for liking the cameras, since everywhere I read a blog post about the Fuji X system, the photographers were former film shooters.

[CRAusmus]

Certainly don't think you are unusual.  Although they are inspired by the film cameras from the past, there is a reason they were laid out the way they were.  They were easy to pick up and operate if you knew what the settings did.  Which is what I suspect most folks love about Fuji's cameras now.  You know what the dials mean (and anybody who's done any photography will), you can pick up this camera and operate it with very little fuss.  It's certainly what I love most about them even if I do have a history in film.

[olli]

I used to shoot film (just because I'm older and when I got into photography film is what there was) but never got into it seriously - that is, I have never developed and printed film. For those who were more heavily into the full process, from taking the picture to printing the end result I can understand the attraction of film shooting but it has no appeal for me. Partly, this is because I much prefer shooting in colour and processing colour is more complicated than processing black and white.

 

The real difference for me, which someone mentioned earlier, is in the more deliberative nature of shooting film. I remember reading about Don McCullin's journey to Stanleyville in DRC. He bluffed his way onto a plane taking mercenaries into the area with his cameras and 20 rolls of film - 720 shots. It sounds like a lot, but he had no idea what he would find there, no idea how long he would be there, no means of getting more film, and no option to delete and reshoot. Every shot had to count.

 

With digital this kind of deliberation and calculation is no longer necessary. It is still possible, though, with a little bit of discipline to reintroduce it. I discovered this one day by accident when I loaded a 1GB card into my camera. With the camera I was using at the time that translated into around 30 shots. When I realised what I had done it became a real challenge to think about what to shoot. These days I still do this from time to time - deliberately - with a 1GB card and often one single focal length lens. It's an interesting experiment and worth trying (assuming you have or can still find such a thing as a 1GB card).

[milandro]

My post title was misleading, I guess. I just wanted to see if there were any other Fuji fans here like myself who were attracted to Fuji gear but had no history with film. In was thinking that I was unusual for liking the cameras, since everywhere I read a blog post about the Fuji X system, the photographers were former film shooters.

 

 

 

I think that the design and layout ( buttons and dials instead of screen menus) of the camera attracts a large number of “ senior” photographers and that might be why it appears that the typical Fuji client has come from a long film camera experience.

 

I was attracted to this before I was even given the chance to see what the camera could do.

 

I bought at first an X-E1 and a 35mm to get a “ feel” of the camera and it did please me both in “ buttons and dials” and then in the results that It gave. But, frankly speaking, the results are very good with any camera claiming professional quality this days!

 

Prior to this I used, professionally, a number of Canon and my experience culminated with a 7D Mk II. I shot mostly stills with it and had the camera 100% of the times on manual focus.

 

I never bonded with that camera though, it was a mere tool, but the files were precisely what we ( I worked in a studio with several people working there, some specialized in PP only) were looking for for the editorial job that we were doing.

 

Now that I have left any professional practice ( but of course still have a professional attitude) I have elected this system to be my system of choice. Its quality is such that it allows anything I might want to do and a lot more.

 

@epscott

 

I really don’t think that my film experience plays any role in my using a digital camera. The way I see it is that they are different media and there is not much us (for me) to compare them.

 

One thing I do think though.

 

Much of its own language was found by photography as opposed to other visual arts, by forming a “ grammar and syntax “ based on the boundaries defined by their technical limitations.

 

Before photography, visual arts didn’t use images which were blurred because they were not in focus or affected by motion blurring, also the perspective was represented in a different way one images were captured on film and contrast became a different entity.

 

When I taught photography I always identified in this, the limits, the origins of the photographic “ grammar and syntax” . I feel that digital photography is still trying to find and define these two important entities ( one can work within these or without these but one needs knowing what and where they are in order to affirm them or deny them).

[Aswald]

I used to shoot film (just because I'm older and when I got into photography film is what there was) but never got into it seriously - that is, I have never developed and printed film. For those who were more heavily into the full process, from taking the picture to printing the end result I can understand the attraction of film shooting but it has no appeal for me. Partly, this is because I much prefer shooting in colour and processing colour is more complicated than processing black and white.

 

The real difference for me, which someone mentioned earlier, is in the more deliberative nature of shooting film. I remember reading about Don McCullin's journey to Stanleyville in DRC. He bluffed his way onto a plane taking mercenaries into the area with his cameras and 20 rolls of film - 720 shots. It sounds like a lot, but he had no idea what he would find there, no idea how long he would be there, no means of getting more film, and no option to delete and reshoot. Every shot had to count.

 

With digital this kind of deliberation and calculation is no longer necessary. It is still possible, though, with a little bit of discipline to reintroduce it. I discovered this one day by accident when I loaded a 1GB card into my camera. With the camera I was using at the time that translated into around 30 shots. When I realised what I had done it became a real challenge to think about what to shoot. These days I still do this from time to time - deliberately - with a 1GB card and often one single focal length lens. It's an interesting experiment and worth trying (assuming you have or can still find such a thing as a 1GB card).

 

Shutter abuse syndrome? My sentiments exactly.

[Naddan28]

I have never used a film camera, although have considered it a few times, having only taken he hobby up in 2011. In the end, I never did. I preferred to spend the money on expanding my existing gear and learning about photography as a whole, instead of film/printing/developing etc.

 

Why did I move from my micro four thirds setup to Fuji? Mainly for improved Colour rendition and the ergonomics of a Fuji set up. These are two areas that film fans often cite as major selling points for film. So I guess fuji's heritage in film has been successfully carried through to the x series and that's why so many people love them.

[Aswald]

So, digital shooters are loving film without knowing?

[9.V.III]

Here here.

Dials and buttons are my reason for being here (and Fuji glass). I hope they never lose focus on giving people an extreme level of manual control.

[milandro]

I hope you don’t mind me telling you this... but it is “ hear, hear” ( this is not written in a rebuffing spirit but simply an informative one)

 

http://grammarist.com/spelling/hear-hear/

[FearTheXNoob]

It's interesting to see how people go astray because everyone reads the post a little differently.

 

Anyway, I'm not drawn to Fuji because I shot film (I did, but didn't do PP in the darkroom). I'm not even drawn to Fuji because of the X-Trans - I still think it is inferior to the sensors I had e.g. in my Nikon D600 (especially dynamic range). I'm drawn to Fuji because I took one into my hand and immediately liked the handling, the intuitive concept of controlling shutter, aperture and ISO, the placement of the buttons and the sound of the shutter. I also liked the feel of the lenses and the quality (build and image-wise). Of course Fuji updating the cameras regularly is a further bonus. That's why I'm loyal to Fuji, and that's why I can look over its shortcoming (for me especially AF speed pre FW4 and dynamic range).

[ShutterNot]

Typical youngsters. Not open to listen to the wise BS  words of experience of old timers

[darknj]

To add to the conversation, considering how "young" the digital cameras are, it's pretty impossible to find a photographer that had a long career by shooting only digital.

 

A couple of years ago I traveled to Hong-Kong and went to the FilMe shop, as you can guess they are pretty much the film specialist and I rented the Hasselblad Xpan with 35mm F4 lens, a roll of ISO800 film and spent the day in Hong Kong.

I have to say that it was both a pleasant and frustrating time, I believe it was a lot due to the camera, it took piuctures directly in landscape format and it throws away all your general photography habits about composition.

 

In overall, it was sort of fun to see how your photo would devlop but I still prefer digital and the X-T1 brings me what I want in automation but still retains full control over what I want.

[Aswald]

Perhaps, photographers who never shot film may grow older reminiscing the nostalgia of how they used to shoot with their smartphones and the beauty of built-in filters.

[darknj]

It's kind of hard to say how things will evolve in the future, Kodak being the perfect example in this case, they went from the pinacle of photography world to bankrupcy in a matter of a few years.

 

Will Instagram and other copies of it live long enough for our next generation to see it disapear still remain something of unknown.

 

But the popularity of the buil-in filters in smartphones boosted the photograhy world, maybe not in the direction would have liked it, but still more and more picture and being taken every single day, out of those a small percentage is going to pick up a real camera one day and who knows, maybe one of them could be the next Cartier-Bresson.

[ShutterNot]

I'm still waiting for the contact lens that takes holograms, with built-in stereo mike and wi-fi ....

[CRAusmus]

It's kind of hard to say how things will evolve in the future, Kodak being the perfect example in this case, they went from the pinacle of photography world to bankrupcy in a matter of a few years.

 

Will Instagram and other copies of it live long enough for our next generation to see it disapear still remain something of unknown.

 

But the popularity of the buil-in filters in smartphones boosted the photograhy world, maybe not in the direction would have liked it, but still more and more picture and being taken every single day, out of those a small percentage is going to pick up a real camera one day and who knows, maybe one of them could be the next Cartier-Bresson.

 

Kodak had every opportunity to take the lead in digital photography.  They used to manufacture the digital backs for all the camera manufacturers.  They opted out of the digital market.  The first digital I ever shot with said Nikon on the front, and Kodak on the back.  The thing weighed a ton, but it was a revelation at the time in photography.

 

[Aswald]

Kodak had every opportunity to take the lead in digital photography.  They used to manufacture the digital backs for all the camera manufacturers.  They opted out of the digital market.  The first digital I ever shot with said Nikon on the front, and Kodak on the back.  The thing weighed a ton, but it was a revelation at the time in photography.

 

 

Yes, Kodak was one of companies cited in case studies in my thesis. They invented the technology (1975, Steven Sasson) but held it back for fear of hurting it's film business. It was in denial and had too much faith that marketing alone would overcome the onset of digital technology. If only they had the tenacity to embrace their invention alongside their core business then, we may be wielding Kodak digital shooters instead of anything else.

[Aswald]

But the popularity of the buil-in filters in smartphones boosted the photograhy world, maybe not in the direction would have liked it, but still more and more picture and being taken every single day, out of those a small percentage is going to pick up a real camera one day and who knows, maybe one of them could be the next Cartier-Bresson.

 

I hope so too......Although, Art as we know it can sometimes be anti-technology. Our instagram "Cartier-Bresson" may prove that you don't need a 50mpix DSLR to create art.

 

I'm also a member of the audiophile community. The Ipods and smartphones literally killed the HiFi industry. While I reminisce about Quads and Rogers or Snell Acoustics, I also get funny looks from my younger peers.