A few days ago, I read a very interesting article by fellow street photographer Eric Kim about “6 reasons why shooting film will make you a better street photographer”. It immediately made me reflect on why I actually used digital. I therefore contacted Eric to know if he minded that I wrote a similar article, yet on the reasons why I thought digital would make you a better street photographer. He gladly accepted as a way to share point of views and I thank him for that. Be it his reasons or mine, there will valid points in both opinions, the ultimate goal being to let you decide by yourself which of film or digital suits better your needs and personality. So please find below my 5 reasons why digital will make you a better street photographer. Note that I have left out some more obvious ones (ISO, convenience, flexibility,… ) trying to point out these more inherent to the photographer’s behavior than those related to technique.
1) Street photography is instinctive.
Film is expensive. Unless you are a millionaire, there is so much shots you will be able to afford on a given day. Your shot selection will therefore depend on how much you got left before the end of your day. It will be there in your mind whenever you take a shot “Is it worth it?”. Not good to me, street photography is instinctive. It is fast and there is no room for doubts, follow your instincts and click whenever what you see (and not what you have left) seems worth a click. Indeed it is a risk vs reward discipline. If you restring yourself from risk, there will be less rewards too.
Leica M9 with 35mm Summilux Asph at F1.4, 1/4000, ISO200, 0.6 ND filter
2) Shot selection comes with experience, not force.
During my first street photography outings, I would come back home with about 150 to 200 shots. Of these, I would probably keep half, most of them crappy. Nowadays, a full day of shooting in the streets will have me come back with around 50 pictures. I have learnt which shots not to take, I have developed specific interests, I master my camera better and I believe I found what my style is. This comes with time, trial and also many failures. It won’t come by a self-imposed shot restriction, indeed, the only way to analyze a shot is to take it. You can then determine afterwards the reasons of failure or success.
Leica M9 with 35mm Summilux Asph at F1.4, 1/2000, ISO200, ND 0.6 filter
3) You mind is not your camera.
I think we all pre-visualize shots, meaning we see a scene and imagine how it would look as a picture. The problem with that it that we see it in three dimensions, while a picture has only two. So don’t be surprised if the output does not have the feel of what you originally saw. Also, our eyes do not have a horizon line problem, it self-regulates. Same apply with out of focus areas, it is very difficult to imagine how they could look like on a given shot. So in doubt, you can have a quick check on your LCD whether your vision translated correctly, and therefore correct your misinterpretations on the spot. I believe it is a great advantage of digital to be able to be confronted straight away with incorrect visualizations. It gives you that second chance that you do not have with film.
Leica M9 with 35mm Summilux Asph at F5.6, 1/750, ISO200
4) It’s not about the camera, it’s all about you.
Shooting a film camera won’t make you get closer, nor stealthier, nor less obtrusive. It is all about you. Overcoming shyness and learning to interact with your subjects is not easy and takes time and practice. Few people are natural social animals, so getting to know how to interact with strangers is a skill that must be exercised. I remember my days in Paris when I would go down to Les Champs-Elysées Avenue for a couple of hours and just shoot strangers as an exercise. I took dozens of shots without the worry of wasting them (nor either with the aim to make great shots). Digital gives you that flexibility to practice as much as you want. It accelerates your learning curve both technically and socially.
Leica M9 with 35mm Summilux Asph at F1.4, 1/1000, ISO200
5) Express your creativity.
In the film days, unless you were willing to spend endless hours in a lab, you did not master the final output of your shots. Film was pre-selected so there was little latitude on what you could done after the shot, especially color wise. Nowadays, software will allow you to basically do anything your creativity will come up with. No more need of years to spend before one masters a chemical lab. Nowadays it is a only a question of months and decent computer skills. And by doing so, don’t feel like your are doing something wrong, isn’t black & white the ultimate stage of the desaturation slider ? Let your creativity fully express itself. Coming up with a unique style is a differentiator. Possibilities are endless nowadays and your street photography might be defined as much by the aesthetics then the content itself.
Leica M9 with 35mm Summilux Asph at F1.4, 1/750, ISO200
So again, have a look at Eric’s article (and his great street photography website) and make yourself your own opinion. Your conclusion might fall in between both, and in the end, nothing prevents you from using both film and digital, right ?
All good points, based on real experience. Thank you for these insights!
I agree with a few points you’ve mentioned, mostly based on my own experience with digital. While my personal issue with digital lies elsewhere, I agree with you in saying that it’s mostly a personality/expression thing. I think if you’re a good photographer the medium will do little to change that, besides that it’s mostly conveniences and look that set people apart. The only point about film I’d say you might have missed is the mindset, you talk about restraint and endless lab hours, the same way you enjoy a quick peek at the LCD and the virtually unlimited experimental possibilities the film folks enjoy delayed gratification and being involved in the process. I personally shoot film like digital, meaning instinctively like you say, many shots based on feel, and then spend quite a bit of time trying to reach the look I want post-scan or in the darkroom, so there may not be a real difference after all :)
You are right about enjoying the lab, I know many people do. I guess we all have an optimal split between time in the street and time post-processing. For some it might be 90%-10% and others 50%-50%. Winogrand was almost 100% at the end of his life. He did not even develop his films anymore, it was the shooting he enjoyed.
All the points are more than correct, because they are based on your personal experience.
At first it may be hard to believe that such simple things could help you decide & improve, but well… they do. I am just an amateur, most often shooting digital, but I also go out with film camera from time to time. It’s totally different philosophy of doing things. However, a few outings with film only made a huge change to my way of digital shooting. I think much more before shooting anything, not in terms of wasting resources, but just because I don’t feel like deleting tons of crap later on. It improved my ‘acceptable’ shots percentage a lot, from, lets say, 6 out of 100, to around 10-20 out of 100. That’s a huge improvement, none of those are great in any way, but that’s what learning is about.
Finally, just wanted to say thank you for creating such an inspiring blog, I love your photos and articles.
Thanks Jack. I understand the don’t feel like deleting tons of craps comments. I now delete on the fly when I know a shot is crap, half because of frustration, half because I don’t want to have to review to many shots afterwards. Be it with film or digital, I really think the acceptable shot rate comes down naturally, with experience and better understanding of your shooting style.
@1 film is not that expensive. Especially compared to a M9 and 35/1.4 Asph.
@2 This argument is valid for film too.
@3 You might have a point here unless the moment is gone. Then you can”t reshoot. During chimping you might loose the next great moment.
@4 You don;t have to load the film. One can practice without any film in the camera! then again film is not that expensive.
@5 Craftsmanship is a joy too and can be an important part of the process. Personally I prefer the hybrid process.
Thanks for your views.
Michiel,
You keep saying that film is not THAT expensive. Well, to me personally, it is THAT expensive. Probably not just the roll, but also the processing; not to mention the learning curve demands so many failed images :D.
So, in that sense, digital photography does make me a better ‘photographer’; because, if there was no digital photography, I wouldn’t even consider photography as a hobby.
Btw, I also agree that M9 is THAT expensive :D
Michiel, I guess it depends how much you shoot and where you live. In Paris I remember film being in the €4-€7 range + development (lab) + maybe scan and you are in the €10-€15 range depending on film. Let’s say you shoot a roll a day on average (and many street photographers do) and your year will come in at €3600-€5400. A couple of years and you have amortized a M9 body (since used Leica lenses don’t depreciate over time).
@3, I agree it does not apply to spontaneous shots. Yet many times, you first spot a setting then wait for something to happen within your frame.
@4 Imagine the shot of once in a lifetime happens then … and you haven’t loaded film … I could never go out without a SD card or film, too frustrating. But indeed, one could do as you suggest.
@5 Yes, craftmanship is the perfect world. Some of us prefer it the chemical way and enjoy it (I can understand that), but there is also a great sense of satisfaction when one picture starts to shine after you worked on it in Lightroom for example.
What I like about digital is it’s instant feedback. Not so much while shooting, but when I go back home, I can instantly see what I did right, what I did wrong, note it and apply it next time. I rarely review my images while shooting as street photography is usually a one chance game. Get the shot wrong and rarely you get the chance to get it again.
If one wants to limit him/herself on how many pictures to take with digital, simply, get a smaller memory card! A 1GB card is a little more than 1 roll of film if you shoot raw.
I might be biased with digital because digital is what has drawn me into photography to begin with. I really appreciate people who shoot film but I don’t think it will make you a better photographer when you are learning.
Christakis, I think your comment is spot on about digital drawing many people to photography, amateurs have exploded over the last decade. Add to that the internet, and photography has a much bigger audience then it had last century.
As for limiting oneself, I took a course last year with war photographer Eric Bouvet and he forced us to shoot only 50 pictures a day. Not easy and I had a tough time respecting the guideline. In the end, when you have great subjects on a given day, why limit yourself. On the opposite, went to Rosario yesterday and shot only 10 pictures. Not inspired and nothing happening, there are days like that.
I may add:
4) It’s not about the camera, it’s all about you.
If film or not film this is very true what you said:
learning to interact with your subjects is not easy and takes time and practice.
Similar to your way down the Champs-Elysées Avenue I took a day near Schönbrunn Palace here in Vienna. Inspired by you I had a day wide open and ‘become closer’.
This one day, one session, changed me a lot, as I first was shy as before but suddenly it became open and free and I could see how simple it is if I only have the heard to do so. I helps when you do this the first time within a tourist area where a camera is accepted anyway.
Sorry if this does not fit 100% to the thread, but take it as a feedback to what you send out to us.
Ciao Axel
Thanks for the feedback Axel. I think there is a point when shyness starts to go away and one approaches people more easily. It never completely goes away, and I even think it is a good thing in some ways. I plan to write an article on the topic in the future.
And you are right, starting with a tourist area is easier, cameras are expected and mostly accepted. Cheers.
film is great because photography is great. and film understands it. all the features: aperture, exposure, etc, come with a sense. you have to understand them to know photography. ignore them and you’ll have a robot, pixel perfect image with no meaning, feel and whatever you name it – as you go digital. photography is a metaphor, not Os and 1s.
problem is, a beautiful mountain photo will scream: can’t you see the wide lens, the bla-bla filter and the hdr editing we made
“Digital gives you that flexibility to practice as much as you want. It accelerates your learning curve both technically and socially” As most of dslr users work in auto mode, statistically, where’s the gain.
Kers, I am not sure all DSLR users work in auto mode. Personally, I use my camera in all manual mode, setting speed, aperture and ISO myself which is I believe independant from the fact whether one uses film or not. Manual is better for street photography, whatever the medium.
Shooting digital definitely speeds up the learning curve, no doubt about it. I’ve come full circle a bit; originally learnt on a film camera, made the transition into digital which meant I learnt a massive amount in the space of a year, and now I’m getting into film again using that knowledge to get much better film shots than I got previously.
It’s definitely interesting to read both sides of the debate, and you can see how both arguments make sense depending on which works for you. I think I’ll always shoot with both; film is lovely and I enjoy being restricted, but you can’t beat the convenience of digital.
p.s. Yanidel, I love seeing your shots, they have an amazing feel to them.
thanks Dean. Actually your way to go about it is very interesting. Learn with digital than go to film. To some people, film will always be better and I can understand it. But experimenting with it is inconvenient and expensive. The only caveat being that if you don’t use full frame in digital, you might not exactly get the same output as with 24 x 36mm film.
It’s funny because this is the response article- the original article on why Film will make you better really didn’t say anything about film as much as it did about rangefinders and the kind of cameras typically associated with film cameras. Then I come here and all your shots are with an M9 (if we could all be so lucky). So you both really seem to agree and the issue isn’t film or digital at all (although for most, a film rangefinder is much more affordable than the M9 digital rangefinder).
You are right, both Eric and I love rangefinders. Many of the explanations on why or why not, actually could also apply to DSLR vs rangefinder.
All I can say is “Exactly”
Much as I like Eric’s site, I don’t buy any of his reasons for film in street photography. The only conceivable reason for using film is better definition, and that’s fading fast (if it was ever an issue for most people posting on line at low res)
There’s at least one more reason too – you don’t need processing or a scanner to see the results!
Cheers
Ali
I really find it difficult to agree with most points made regarding the benefits of digital over film; Clearly digital is less expensive (except for the initial outlay) Your stance that good photography is intuitive and therefore benefits from aspects of free reign – clicking away, prehaps without thought leaves me wondering where the potential of judgement comes in.
Most recently I sojurned to Lisbon, Portugal where I for ten days engaged in the practice of street photography using only film cameras opting for black & white film. Thinking was part of the whole, indeed is part of the whole practice of picture making> In this respect I find it hard to respect the convenient benefits of digital.
Hi Paul,
Some people need a lot of time to construct a pictures, others don't. It does not mean one way is better than the other. Still, digital allows you exactly the same ability to think about your pictures, yet if you want to shoot more intuitively, cost is not a deterrent. I just find it odd that some people need to load a film to shoot less and think more. The problem results a mind control one, not a question of film vs digital. Cheers.
I don't think either one can make someone a better photographer. People who focus too much on this stuff never become good photographers. There's some truth in the fact that the selectiveness of film produces better pictures. And there's some truth in the fact that digital's ability to shoot many shots without consequence could produce a better picture. Just shoot digital for a while and try shooting film and see which one you like. I shoot both. I like digital for its speed and film for its beauty.
Just one thing, though. If speed and instinctiveness is so important to you in street photography, why not shoot with a DSLR with autofocus?
It's never the gear, it's the cameraman.
By the way, who is Eric Kim?
fellow photographer?
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/about/
One point that is making deterrent to try film, a part from the expensiveness of the change is space.
I am an expat, and during the last 10 years I’ve always been in that situation that I do not know where I will end up and I do not really have a place to call home.
All those house moves from one place to the other tought us to reduce our baggage and not have too many stuff to carry around if we have to move again. So for me film raises the concern of what would I do with all the film and processed photos? I cannot just stock them and then carry them around every time I move.
I just prebook the new reprint of “The Decisive Moment” from HCB and my wife told me: “Yes, ok but the book stays in Ireland next time we move”. Of course it won’t, but you get my point…
BTW Congrats for the blog Yanidel, great photos!