Would a digi shooter find a film shooter, too slow on a shoot?

[Terrywoodenpic]

May be if they were shooting 8x10

It took me no longer to work in Large format than 35mm or medium format. In all cases it was about concentration on shooting the subject. I no more had to concentrate on setting up a LF camera than any other type. It all became automatic.
To get out a monorail from its case put it on a tripod and mount a lens. required almost no thought. None of these things were done before selecting a suitable viewpoint,. they just followed on, one to another. the difference is that with a hand camera you probably take several different shots to each single shot with large format.

With large format you tend to make all the important decisions before you do anything, with other formats you make partial decisions as you go along. and are probably still taking shots when a LF worker has packed up and is ready to go.
Any photographer should be able to assemble and mount their equipment with their eyes shut, it should become an automatic process like driving a car or riding a bicycle.

 

[YoshiK1]

If you go out with other photographers whether digital, film or mixed then it's expected that you'll be hanging around on the other persons schedule anyway out of respect. I could go out with someone and take one or two photos on my digital camera and my friend could take 900 on theirs. This could just be because we shoot different styles or types of things. If you can't go out with a person who's not willing to wait for you to get what you need as well (as it's a mutual outing) then you shouldn't spend time with that person I'd say.

 

[Teflon-Mike]

When I was at Uni, I did a lot of my photography at the Rock-Soc of whatever band they'd booked that week. I used winder equipped Olympus OM10's, cos they could be thrown away and replaced for the price of a roll of film, when the band got beer-showered, and shot bulk wound slide film, cos cheap, and home processed for more cheap, so that I could 'machine gun' the dynamic performance. Probably wasn't worth it, but, quick look at the archive suggests that I would shoot maybe three rolls of film, around 100 shots in a 45minute set. A quick look at some digi-archives suggests.. oooh... I shoot maybe about 100 shots in a 45minute 'set' now at the local rock-pub.... So.. not a lot's different these days... only I dont spend so much time winding film into cassettes or mixing E6 chemicals, before or after the gig!
Moving on... completely bamboozled one of the daughters photo-friends who had this similar pre-conception about film, when she spent twenty minutes faffing around checking histograms and the like, and with a very manual old film camera, I did a quick f16-sunny finger in the air, made my settings on my manual antique, and that was it... could actually shoot faster than O/H's son did with a smart-phone! (Turning it on and finding the right menus!)
So it's not the hardware that determines how quick you work... its how quick you work that determines how quick you work, and how much of a meal you make of the job!
As to how tolerant shooting companions may be to you faffing around.... that will be down to how much you faff around... and how tolerant they are!
Not whether you choose to shoot film over digital or vica versa.

 

[jonbeeza]

At least with Digital shooting of difficult subjects, you can iterate your decision making as you go along. which is not something you can do with film.
Film or digital things take just as long as needed, not less and not more.

However when working under pressure the action itself limits the time available.
None the less, the various drive modes available to digital users, give a marked advantage to the possible outcomes for them.
The age related tremor in my hands means that more and more I use such ploys to my advantage.

One of the things with shooting film indoors, I was having to open the lens to it's widest, and get as much window light as I possibly could. Not simply a case of turning your ISO up to 3200 - 6400 or whatever your camera can handle, before images fall apart.

 

[jonbeeza]

I have only took a few frames of film, it does feel a little antiquated at times. Having to take a note of the shutter speed and aperture, and even the time I took the photo, that takes time too.

 

[LeeRatters]

I have only took a few frames of film, it does feel a little antiquated at times. Having to take a note of the shutter speed and aperture, and even the time I took the photo, that takes time too.

I don't bother with any of that for film. Just balance the exposure (compose obviously) and take the shot.

 

[jonbeeza]

I don't bother with any of that for film. Just balance the exposure (compose obviously) and take the shot.

When looking at my old photos, sometimes I like to see what aperture I used, or focal length. Most of the time I can guess if a lens was wide open, but not if was f/4 or f/5.6 for example.

 

[LeeRatters]

When looking at my old photos, sometimes I like to see what aperture I used, or focal length. Most of the time I can guess if a lens was wide open, but not if was f/4 or f/5.6 for example.

I've got film photos from back in the 90's somewhere but there's no way any notes would still be with them..!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I've got film photos from back in the 90's somewhere but there's no way any notes would still be with them..!

I was shooting film since the end of the war. I have never ever kept written notes of exposure. It seems an absolute waste of time and effort. Every situation is unique and requires individual consideration. what is perhaps surprising to beginners is that very different situations can require the same exposure settings.
In the course of one of my jobs I was required to "Invent" the exposure data to go along side the photographs that they published. Because readers liked to see them... I had to invent the camera, film and exposure settings. no one ever complained.

 

[john.margetts]

I have only took a few frames of film, it does feel a little antiquated at times. Having to take a note of the shutter speed and aperture, and even the time I took the photo, that takes time too.

I have been seriously shooting film for 50 years now and I have never once taken a note of shutter speed or aperture. Why do it?

 

[jonbeeza]

I've got film photos from back in the 90's somewhere but there's no way any notes would still be with them..!

I have been seriously shooting film for 50 years now and I have never once taken a note of shutter speed or aperture. Why do it?

Possibly to see what lens was used, and what aperture etc. I am sure loads of digital shooters trawl back through their photos to look at their exif, I know they do, I have seen it posted on this very forum.

When there is a question asked about a photo, all you fellas come along and say"post the exif info, so we can tell what you did wrong". If I were to ask a question about a photo, that turned out wrong, how do we know what went wrong, if I do not have that info to hand? Film photo that is.

 

[Asha]

I have been seriously shooting film for 50 years now and I have never once taken a note of shutter speed or aperture. Why do it?

I used to keep notes as I wrongly believed that they would help when confronted with similar scenes in the future. Of course every exposure is unique and thus my efforts of listing aperture etc was a complete waste of time.
The most that I do now is note the location ( the town name or county suffices) and year that the exposure was made on the neg sleeve.

 

[jonbeeza]

I am using about three different lenses on the camera, so I would like to know what lens produced which photos, just in case one did produce better images.

 

[LeeRatters]

Possibly to see what lens was used, and what aperture etc. I am sure loads of digital shooters trawl back through their photos to look at their exif, I know they do, I have seen it posted on this very forum.

When there is a question asked about a photo, all you fellas come along and say"post the exif info, so we can tell what you did wrong". If I were to ask a question about a photo, that turned out wrong, how do we know what went wrong, if I do not have that info to hand? Film photo that is.

I trawl back through my photos to see where I haven't been for a while when deciding what to get up to on the weekend I never look at one of my old photos and delve deeper to find out the aperture used etc But that's just me, everyone is different.

 

[jonbeeza]

I trawl back through my photos to see where I haven't been for a while when deciding what to get up to on the weekend I never look at one of my old photos and delve deeper to find out the aperture used etc But that's just me, everyone is different.

I have to admit it is a pain in the a**e to keep noting things down, when taking a frame. Did it this morning, and it does get tedious.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

I have to admit it is a pain in the a**e to keep noting things down, when taking a frame. Did it this morning, and it does get tedious.

Don’t do it then?

I’ve shot hundreds of rolls of film over the last few years and never noted down settings.

 

[Teflon-Mike]

I have to admit it is a pain in the a**e to keep noting things down, when taking a frame. Did it this morning, and it does get tedious.

Like I said, its how much of a faff you are making of the job.
On film cameras, which lens is better was always rather a moot question. For the OM's I had a 35-70 and a 70-210, it was normally pretty obvious which lens,and even lens length, I'd used. On the M42 Sigma, I had 'all primes', a 29; 50, 135 and 300; again normally pretty obvious which I'd used....... when testing different lenses picked up in the rummage bins for the Sigma.. well, which was batter would be decided, if needs, from taking the camera and two lenses out, with a note-pad, and crating test shots, often with the note-pad in view telling me such imperative info....
Yes its 'nice' to have the camera record that data automatically for later consideration, b~u~t, it's not such important info, a~n~d recording it isn't really all that novel... but it IS something else you can faff and frett about... OR you can spend your efforts 'just' worrying about getting the picture, Not 'data' no one, even you, really need... hmm.. we leave it to you.....

 

[simon ess]

I’ve shot hundreds of rolls of film over the last few years and never noted down settings.

Same here.

I'm struggling to see what use it would be, apart from maybe focal length, but even then...

 

[Solo man]

I think if I had to write all the details down every time I took a film shot...I'd give up using film. I have a lot of film cameras/lenses that I use and I'd see little to no enjoyment in having to do that. The only thing I do because I develop all my own film is make a note of the film and what it was developed with.
If you only use one camera and a couple of lenses you should pretty much be able to tell which lens you used.

 

[jonbeeza]

Don’t do it then?

I’ve shot hundreds of rolls of film over the last few years and never noted down settings.

Like I said, its how much of a faff you are making of the job.
On film cameras, which lens is better was always rather a moot question. For the OM's I had a 35-70 and a 70-210, it was normally pretty obvious which lens,and even lens length, I'd used. On the M42 Sigma, I had 'all primes', a 29; 50, 135 and 300; again normally pretty obvious which I'd used....... when testing different lenses picked up in the rummage bins for the Sigma.. well, which was batter would be decided, if needs, from taking the camera and two lenses out, with a note-pad, and crating test shots, often with the note-pad in view telling me such imperative info....
Yes its 'nice' to have the camera record that data automatically for later consideration, b~u~t, it's not such important info, a~n~d recording it isn't really all that novel... but it IS something else you can faff and frett about... OR you can spend your efforts 'just' worrying about getting the picture, Not 'data' no one, even you, really need... hmm.. we leave it to you.....

Like I said, its how much of a faff you are making of the job.
On film cameras, which lens is better was always rather a moot question. For the OM's I had a 35-70 and a 70-210, it was normally pretty obvious which lens,and even lens length, I'd used. On the M42 Sigma, I had 'all primes', a 29; 50, 135 and 300; again normally pretty obvious which I'd used....... when testing different lenses picked up in the rummage bins for the Sigma.. well, which was batter would be decided, if needs, from taking the camera and two lenses out, with a note-pad, and crating test shots, often with the note-pad in view telling me such imperative info....
Yes its 'nice' to have the camera record that data automatically for later consideration, b~u~t, it's not such important info, a~n~d recording it isn't really all that novel... but it IS something else you can faff and frett about... OR you can spend your efforts 'just' worrying about getting the picture, Not 'data' no one, even you, really need... hmm.. we leave it to you.....

The last film photos I took with this camera, and the images looked slightly over exposed. I thought the exposure comp had not been altered, but I can't remember now. I can't recall what lens I used, if it was the kit lens that came with the camera, or the 50mm 1.8D. I would like to have known these things, just for me of course.

I know most of you are not bothered with things like this, but I have a funny brain, I just can't help it.

 

[Topsy]

The only time I note down details of shots taken these days is when I am shooting slide film to test kit, shutters, apertures and light meters etc. It is a faff but helps when wanting to "calibrate" kit with discrepancies/issues. Also back in the days when I was learning I would make notes so that when I got my film back I could match the frames against the data and see where I could improve, once I had gotten "good"m with all the technicalities I no longer needed to make notes. I am about to start a project photographing Dartmoor over 12 months, I will most likely make notes during the recce shoots so that I know what locations are best at what times etc but those notes will be more location notes than technical notes.

 

[jonbeeza]

OK, so it seems I am in the minority then. Just a quick mental note, of the date photo was taken.

 

[Ben johns]

When I had my Leica M3 I was just as quick if not slightly quicker. For one I had to remember my exposure settings. I’d take readings of the darkest shadows and brightest highlights and move between them. It meant 99% of the time I’d decided on my exposure before I’d put the camera to my eye, faster than seeing what the camera said then putting in the settings.
also you don’t stand around looking at the screen at what you just took. You have to change film though

 

[Teflon-Mike]

Why are you taking a photo? To make a 'picture'... dont loose sight of the woods for all the trees! What matters at the end of the day, is whether the picture you took was 'decent' or not... That's what you look at, that's what the folk you show it look at... and pretty much ALL that matters.. being able to say, "Oh well, I took that one at f4 and 1/2000th, with my 300mm lens..." Really doesn't matter very much... your audiences eyes are likely to glaze over at that p[point and they will be thinking 'I just wanted to see the picture of Aunt Mablle getting her tot stuck in the mangle.. I REALLY didn't want a lesson on photography..... what IS an aperture, anyway?!' People who's eyes DON'T glaze over.... you probably don't want to show the photo to anyway... they probably aren't that interested in Auntie ~Mable getting her tit stuck in the mangle... they probably are interested in the Aperture, and more telling you that the f-number is the ratio of effective aperture or hole diameter to the focal length of the lens, and other nuggets of technical information to make YOUR eyes glaze over.....
And what 'really' might you learn from notes that say f4@1/250th? The PICTURE will tell you if it's in or out of focus, or blurry because of camera or subject movement.. do you REALLY need a note-book or exif file to tell you that?
Like I said, dot loose sight of the wood for all the trees, and MAKE faff you don't need and probably isn't all that helpful.... and seperate the variables here.. you want to do a group shoot.. and compare other people's results with your own.... stick to that remit, and compare thier photo's to yours, dont start trtying to make a 4d matric of comparing thier shots with yours taken with a telephotp tels to a wide angle lens, or your shots taken with a hand held meter to thhose taken with the TTL in camera metering..... limit the variables and compare like with like.... group shooting, the comparison is mostly YOUR interpretation of a scene compared to some-one elses..... did YOU spot the gorilla walking accross the basket ball pitch? Did you find an angle they didn't? Did you open up to selectively focus on the woman in the crowd with the 'We love Deano' banner and the big baps, or did you keep on track and set aperture for DoF to get the ball sharp?
That is why you do group shoots, to see what you get others don't or wiki-workie.... to compare approach and interpretation. You want to compare two lenses or two film emulsions.,,, go do it on your own time on your OWM shoot, where you can limit and control the variables and keep consistency between shots so that you CAN compare the changes you want to scrutinise... not 'guess' why dofferences have occurred....
Back to top.. its nothing to do with film vs widgetal, its nothing to do with one being inherently faster or more immediate than the other.... its ENTIRELY down to what you are about, and if working with others, meshing with them, rather than grating against them.
Stop trying to pack it all into a oner and make a camel of a compromise all ways around....

 

[drsilver]

How fast do you need to be to get this?



Of course you can't take this picture anymore, with film or otherwise. They all wear goggles now.

(Nikon F3, Tamron 300 F/2.8, Tri-X, 1/1000@f/11, circa 1990)

 

[joxby]

I have to admit it is a pain in the a**e to keep noting things down, when taking a frame. Did it this morning, and it does get tedious.

I'd like to say you're nuts, I'd also ask why you feel the need to record these details, *thinks* its gotta be something to do with the default availability of detail that comes with only ever shooting digital maybe.
I don't record anything about my negs ever, sometimes when I'm sorting through them I kinda wish occasionally I'd dated them, but that's about as close to neg detail I'm interested in going.
So after hypocritically smashing you to bits with that, I have to confess to being a secret detail recorder, details of prints.
The DR prints I make exist twice, one finished and one with permanent marker notes detailing how the print was made with dodge/burn areas, timings, filter grades and any number of stupid masking notes.
I'm struggling to unpack the idea that neg notes are somehow less relevant than print notes, I mean they are less relevant to each other but are of equal importance if you want to record how they were made...

 

[jonbeeza]

I'd like to say you're nuts, I'd also ask why you feel the need to record these details, *thinks* its gotta be something to do with the default availability of detail that comes with only ever shooting digital maybe.
I don't record anything about my negs ever, sometimes when I'm sorting through them I kinda wish occasionally I'd dated them, but that's about as close to neg detail I'm interested in going.
So after hypocritically smashing you to bits with that, I have to confess to being a secret detail recorder, details of prints.
The DR prints I make exist twice, one finished and one with permanent marker notes detailing how the print was made with dodge/burn areas, timings, filter grades and any number of stupid masking notes.
I'm struggling to unpack the idea that neg notes are somehow less relevant than print notes, I mean they are less relevant to each other but are of equal importance if you want to record how they were made...

Possibly, but in another thread there was discussion about my film camera over exposing. Trying to figure out why this was. Trying to remember what settings the camera was at. Someone asked what lens did I use for a particular photo, I was able to tell them, because I made a note of the focal length.

 

[drsilver]

A little off topic, but kinda funny.

Other than a couple of feeble tries at imitating Ansel Adams on a 35mm negative, I never took any notes about my pictures. But I can still look at a picture I made 30 years ago and tell you what the light was like, what equipment I used, where I was standing and why I chose to stand there instead of somewhere else. Names, dates, places are fuzzy or lost altogether, but I remember the shot, remember the shoot.

I had that picture of the swimmer above laying around, and when I posted it, I added the specs from memory. No way to verify it now, but I bet those specs are right on the money.

Back on topic, the one piece of equipment that I used more than any other when shooting film was my incident light meter. (I was a Minolta meter guy. They give them away on Ebay these days.) Even on high-end cameras, those old built-in meters were pretty bad when the cameras were new and got worse as they aged. I never trusted them. I was always more comfortable measuring the light rather than the reflection of the light.

 

[jonbeeza]

A little off topic, but kinda funny.

Other than a couple of feeble tries at imitating Ansel Adams on a 35mm negative, I never took any notes about my pictures. But I can still look at a picture I made 30 years ago and tell you what the light was like, what equipment I used, where I was standing and why I chose to stand there instead of somewhere else. Names, dates, places are fuzzy or lost altogether, but I remember the shot, remember the shoot.

I had that picture of the swimmer above laying around, and when I posted it, I added the specs from memory. No way to verify it now, but I bet those specs are right on the money.

Back on topic, the one piece of equipment that I used more than any other when shooting film was my incident light meter. (I was a Minolta meter guy. They give them away on Ebay these days.) Even on high-end cameras, those old built-in meters were pretty bad when the cameras were new and got worse as they aged. I never trusted them. I was always more comfortable measuring the light rather than the reflection of the light.

Yes, it could be the in built light meter. I have an idea or two, to try next time.

 

[Dangerous]

When I was taking photos on film they were mostly family photos and I was conscious of the costs of film, processing etc. so never took that many. I took even less in the way of photography shots. All down to the fact I had a family and not a lot of money to go round.

Moving to digital it was why take one as I can take 21 (all the same?) and only print the best. Well I did print 1 and as for being the best it fell a long way short of that. I soon learned a different way only take a couple of shots, get the better and move on. I would take 50 but the bin 30 (duff or duplicates). Now these were always 'grab' shots as I was the only photographer and we were out on a family day out our out with a walking group.

Since I started going out to take photos (alone or with other photographers) I now have slowed down, look for the photo, spend time to get it right and then take the shot. I can take 1 or 101 and be more choosy about the ones I keep. My percentage of technical keeper has gone up, I take a lot less duplicates and less of the technically good photos are getting deleted because I spend more time making sure I look for the tree branch in the wrong place type of composition errors. I put a lot more time in to 'getting it right' in camera so I crop less.

I guess if I was using film I would take less photos and be a bit quicker purely because of the number taken rather than time spent on each photo.

So in my opinion shot for shot there should be no difference in time but maybe shooting digital you may spend more time and get more shots.

I think the main difference in time taken would be the subject preference of the person behind the camera rather than film vs digital.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Just a hypothetical question really. I am asking this because I am shooting film again, but I don't know if I will go back to fully. Would a digital shooter, go out with a person who was shooting only film? Would the digital shooter see the film user as too slow? I could see why they might. Because by the time the film user weighs up the shot, and thinks will this shot work, chances are the film user wont take the shot. While all this is going on, the digital user will have probably fired of about twenty shots or more.

This is just for future reference really, just in case I would be thinking of going on a meet up. If it were me using digital, and I was with a film shooter, I could slow down, but that is just me.

I'd say the essence of the OP stems from the 'spray and pray' stereotype that some like to use to mock those who shoot digital. As we can see from the thread, the reality is far from the truth, and it's much more about individual personality and approach than the equipment used.

I'm also pleased to have met and spent time with some of the contributors in this thread, and there was never any apparent difference in speed between those shooting film and those using digital.

 

[jonbeeza]

I'd say the essence of the OP stems from the 'spray and pray' stereotype that some like to use to mock those who shoot digital. As we can see from the thread, the reality is far from the truth, and it's much more about individual personality and approach than the equipment used.

I'm also pleased to have met and spent time with some of the contributors in this thread, and there was never any apparent difference in speed between those shooting film and those using digital.

Something I am guilty of when using the digital camera, I have to admit this made me lazy.

 

[redsnappa]

I take more time shooting a particular subject using digital than when using film. I am much more likely when shooting digital to shoot many more alternative versions of a subject than when shooting film.