Really??
What a load of old bollocks
I've just seen and read this article over on the BBC site, and most of it comes across as hipster BS.
So let's break some of this down.
“In a world where we can get everything easily, it's taken the beauty out of it all"
Hope
What does that even mean? Are they saying that shooting with a digital camera can't show the beauty of something and the only way for beauty to exist is on film.
“Shooting digital is almost too perfect, film photography you can see real emotion and grain.”
Hope
Ok, digital images can be a bit sterile, overly sharp and sometimes over saturated but a good photographer can still show emotion in a digital image, and how the f*ck does having grain add to an emotion?
Let's take two film images, migrant mother and Afghan girl, would they have any less emotion in them if they were shoot digitally? and I bet no one is thinking about the grain in either image.
Do we take it another step and say the film can't show the same emotion as a painting, do we think that the Mona Lisa has more emotion because we can see the brush strokes?
“If you want to learn how to use a camera, you have to shoot film. Anyone can have a good eye for photography but to get that emotion, it needs to be film.”
Alex
What a ridiculous statement. If you want to learn how to use a camera, you need to learn the exposure triangle and this can be learnt on either a film or digital camera.
Again that word “emotion”, film or digital doesn't have an emotion.
Emotions comprise a subjective experience (what you feel), a physiological response (how your body reacts), and a behavioral/expressive response (what you do).
“It slows you down, you become more present.”
One of the most over used and hyped phrases used in film photography.
Yes, if you're using a field camera, things are going to be slower. Taking photograph with any type of camera should be a slow process, checking that the composition is right, the lighting is correct and if a portrait the subject doesn't have a f*cking lamppost growing out of their head.
As to being more present how the f*ck, can you be more present than already being there. Your presence is needed to take the image in the first place.
“With film, you're not going to look back and think ‘oh that was a bad photo', you'll look back and think ‘remember that moment’.
Hope
Duh! Yes, you are, if its a bad photograph, it doesn't matter what it was taken with film or digital, bad is bad.
The old saying “ you can't polish a turd” comes to mind.
Although some think you can cover it is glitter and call it “art”.
“We can also influence the emotions of others by the photos we share – such as joyful photos of people smiling often make people smile, and photos of cute animals can make us tap into our nurturing instinct, photos can be extremely powerful.”
This is true but again, it doesn't matter if it's film or digital.
The whole thing sounds like a puff piece, filling with analogue film cliches.
Of those of us who use film for our photography how many do it because of how it photos look? If we were really honest about it we’d say none of us. We do it because it’s the process we love. Loading the camera, the click of the shutter, the winding on, developing tanks and darkroom prints.
somebody had to tick some boxes there and that is what they did with the article. yes, i agree with you, it is all shite and crap. to me the end is the worst part: taking photos of smiling people - yes, that is the manipulation of social media where you can't show a person in distress or a mother breastfeeding as it is against the community rules! 😱🤮
i am a user of both types: film and digital and each type has it's own place in my photography.