Quote Originally Posted by Bobab View Post
Let me try to explain myself.

Analogue photography is slow, it is very slow (and expensive if not). I know to some extent that can be a good thing, as it forces one to slow down and think. However, I am starting to think that the amount of time spent on the peripherals of image taking (developing, printing, scanning) takes a lot of time and energy away from the bit which actually matters - the artistic aspect of the image making process.

The printing can be as much an artistic aspect as the taking.

I understand that much can be done to manipulate and alter an image during the developing and printing process. But so much more can be done, and far more quickly, with the digital process.

Perhaps, if you're of a digital mindset. Perhaps not if you have more of an analog mindset

And in addition to that is the instant feedback, and the far better scope for experimentation.

As long as your 'puter don't crash

I like shooting with analogue gear. Mainly because I like old mechanical objects. I don't know why, but I do. But I am starting to think that they hamper one's progress as as a photographer, let alone an "artist", which in my view, few people can ultimately become anyway (and I doubt I will ever get there myself).

If you enjoy messing around with old mechanical objects, isn't that a good enough reason to mess around with old mechanical objects? As far as being an "Artist" goes, there are plenty of Artists, but very few who can make a picture that takes a viewer's breath away---and that seldom depends on the name of the camera or lens.

The other issue is that, I am starting to think that using analogue gear when everyone else out there is using digital, is like taking a knife to a gun fight.


An 8x10 on a tripod makes a better club than a Nikon D3500

They can take thousands and thousands of photos, experiment, think about what want to communicate with their image and create. While it takes me a good part of my weekend to shoot, develop and scan a couple of rolls of 35 mm. Am I every going to produce interesting photos, when I am spending half my brain power worrying about what developer to use, at what temperature and for how long to get the effect I want (or mostly, just not ruin the negative).

Is it more efficient to vet "thousands and thousands" of images to find "the one" or shuffle through a stack of negatives to find it---assuming you already knew what "the one" was supposed to look like?



I have not been doing analogue for particularly long, but in the brief time I have been doing it, I have developed an uneasy feeling that this is not the best way if I really want to do something "creative" rather than just producing images which are poor knock offs of those which may have been ground breaking in the past. It really hit me when I watch an interview with Pedro Meyer on the "Art of Photography" youtube channel. I don't particularly like Meyer's photography, but I think I agree with what he says about art and photography.

If you think digital works best for you, why mess with film? What are you hoping film will give you that's an improvement over digital? As far as knock offs of ground breaking images in the past, there is no shortage of knock offs of ground breaking images of the past taken with digital cameras. None! So hone your skills with film on Half Dome in homage to Ansel Adams, or chili peppers like Weston, but go out and find your own vision no matter the media----this is really important!
PS: None of this has stopped me, as of this morning, acquiring my first LF camera. But I am a bit disheartened.



Once you start looking at the world upside down and in reverse, strange things happen. There may be hope for you yet! Good luck!